588 



Issued April 24, l'JO'J. 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY^-BULLETIN No. 124. 

H. \Y. WILEY, Chief of Bureau. 



CHEMICAL STUDIES OF AMERICAN 
BARLEYS AND MALTS. 



BY 

J. A. LE CLERC, 

PHYSIOLOGICAL CHEMIST, 

AND 

ROBERT WAHL, 

SPECIAL AGENT. 




WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 

190U. 




Glass. 
Book. 



o 5o 



_. .-■ : 



Issued April 24, 1909. 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY— BULLETIN No. 124. 

H. W. WILEY, Chief of Bureau. 



CHEMICAL STUDIES OF AMERICAN 
BARLEYS AND MALTS. 



BY 

J. A. LE CLERC, 

PHYSIOLOGICAL CHEMIST, 
AND 

ROBERT WAHL, 

SPECIAL AGENT. 




WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 

1909. 









3>* 



LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. 



U. S. Department of Agriculture, 

Bureau of Chemistry, 
Washington, D. C, January 16, 1909. 
Sir : I have the honor to submit for your inspection and approval 
a manuscript containing the preliminary results of investigations 
specifically authorized by Congress in the agricultural appropriation 
bill for the fiscal years 1903-1907, to study the barleys grown in dif- 
ferent sections of the United States, with a view to improving their 
quality. 

This study is especially valuable at this time, because of the legis- 
lation regarding denatured alcohol, for the production of which a 
certain amount of malt is generally used. The study was made by 
J. A. Le Clerc, in charge of the vegetable physiological investigations 
of the Bureau, and Robert Wahl, special agent, with the collaboration 
of J. S. Chamberlain, T. C. Trescot, A. Given, C, Goodrich, W. J. 
Young, A. Nilson, N. H. Claussen, and O. Eoewade. 

I recommend that this report be published as Bulletin No. 124 of 
the Bureau of Chemistry. 

Respectfully, H. W. Wiley, 

Chief of Bureau. 
Hon. James Wilson, 

Secretary of Agriculture. 



CONTENTS 



Page. 

Introduction 7 

Eeview of the literature 8 

Kinds of barley 17 

Barley valuation . 19 

The Berlin and Vienna systems 19 

Objective factors 22 

Subjective factors 22 

Action of the Berlin Congress, 1908 26 

Tentative system for valuing American barleys 27 

Standard barley * 27 

Calculating the percentages 27 

Tests or examinations required 28 

Plan of the investigation 29 

Samples and determinations made thereon 29 

Chemical methods of analysis 30 

Mechanical and biological methods of analysis 33 

Discussion of results 34 

Protein content of barley 35 

Relation of protein to starch and extract 36 

Eelation of protein content to weight per 1,000 grains 37 

Relation of the protein content to the character of the endosperm 38 

Relation of protein and hull content 40 

Comparative composition of large and small grains 41 

Other constituents of barley 42 

Relation of total to soluble protein 44 

Lecithin in its relation to protein and phosphoric acid 46 

Coefficient of mealiness 47 

Summary of results 47 

Ordinary 6-row barleys 47 

Two-row barleys 50 

Six-row western barleys 50 

Comparison of malts 51 

Changes in composition during malting 54 

Conclusions 60 



ILLUSTRATION. 



Typical barleys Frontispiece 



STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 



INTRODUCTION. 

During the past decade many investigations have been undertaken 
regarding the improvement of the quality of barley for both brew- 
ing and feeding purposes. The publication of many of these inves- 
tigations took the form of discussions as to the relative value of a 
high-protein and low-protein barley for malting, and thereby addi- 
tional valuable information has been added to our knowledge of 
the subject. 

Moreover, the still more recent legislation regarding denatured 
alcohol has given additional impetus to the study of barley and 
malts. It is well known that for the production of alcohol a certain 
amount of malt is generally used. This malt is added to convert the 
starch into sugar, which then can be further converted into alcohol 
by means of yeast through the ordinary process of fermentation. 
The amount of malt thus used varies from 5 to 15 per cent of the 
total amount of raw material employed. The efficiency of the malt 
depends upon the power of converting starch which it possesses; in 
other words, a malt is more or less valuable" for the production of 
industrial alcohol according to its diastatic power. When it is 
remembered that for the production of even 100,000,000 gallons of 
alcohol (that is, 1 gallon per capita) about 10,000,000 bushels of malt 
will be required, and, further, that malts vary greatly in diastatic 
power or the power of converting starch into fermentable sugar, 
then one easily realizes the full importance of a thorough study of 
American barleys and malts. 

It is generally recognized that the chemist and botanist must work 
together in order to solve the various agricultural problems, and 
much work has been done regarding the influence of soil, fertilizers, 
selection of seed, etc., on the quality of the barley produced; the 
variety, species, or race of barley to be selected for seed ; and the effect 
of climatic conditions on the properties of the crop. As far as pos- 
sible these data are presented in such a way as to aid the barley grower 
and at the same time acquaint the consumer with the properties of 
barleys grown under different conditions. The results of this work 
are compared with those of other investigators in order to solve some 
of the questions which relate to the physical and chemical character - 

7 



8 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 

istics of barley. The investigations herein recorded are purely pre- 
liminary. It was thought, however, that the results thus far obtained 
would be of sufficient interest to warrant their publication without 
waiting for the completion of the work. 

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. 

The view point from which the various investigations on this sub- 
ject have been conducted and the conclusions drawn will appear from 
the following survey of the literature. 

Protein and its cleavage products are attracting more and more 
the attention of those who are investigating barley and malt and their 
products. On the one hand, preference is given to low-protein bar- 
ley, rejecting as unsuitable for brewing all barleys containing over 11 
per cent of protein. Such barley would be best suited for the produc- 
tion of distillers 1 malt. Other investigators believe that such a line of 
demarcation is purely arbitrary and is apt during certain seasons to 
cause the rejection of barleys which may produce good malts and 
good beer. As a matter of fact, Prior has shown that many Aus- 
trian barleys with a protein content of 11 or 12 per cent have fur- 
nished superior malts, even for brewing purposes, yielding a high 
percentage of extract. 

The fact that the same variety of barley will vary widely in pro- 
tein content from year to year, even when grown in the same locality, 
due to the preponderating influence of environment, would indicate 
the impracticability of insisting on any such arbitrary standard as 
the consideration of the protein content alone in accepting or reject- 
ing barley for brewing purposes. Haase, who in 1902 proposed that 
a good brewing barley should not contain more than 10 per cent of 
protein, based his conclusions on the fact that Silesian barleys during 
several years did not average much above 10 per cent. However, in 
1905 more than 75 per cent of the barleys examined by Haase con- 
tained over 11 per cent of protein. This caused him to adopt 11 per cent 
as the basis of his system of valuation. This standard refers to the 
2-row barley, Hanna and Chevalier, etc., grown in Europe; it does 
not apply to the ordinary 6-row barleys — the Manchurian or Oder- 
brucker— grown generally in the Middle Western States, for example, 
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, etc., as Wahl has shown. 6 The average 
protein content of the 6-row barleys grown in this country is nearer 
12 than 11 per cent, and only rarely is a sample with less than 11.5 
per cent of protein produced. Such a standard may easily be ac- 
cepted in so far as concerns the 2-row barleys or the thick-skin 6-row 
barleys — that is, the Bay Brewing barleys, grown principally in Cali- 

a Wochenschr. Brau., 1905, 22: 52. 

6 Address at the Vienna International Agricultural Congress, 1907. 



REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. • 9 

fornia— and the thin-skin 6-row Utah Winter barley, for all of these 
varieties contain on an average about 10.5 per cent of protein. 

The literature on barley and malt investigations teems with sug- 
gestions relating to the kind of barley best adapted for brewing pur- 
poses, the influence of various fertilizers on the composition of bar- 
ley, the changes it undergoes in the process of malting, the role which 
the extract, or the nitrogen, etc., plays in brewing, and the influence 
of the various constituents on the quality of the finished product. 
Comparatively little, however, has been written from the standpoint 
of the production of industrial alcohol. 

Attention should be called to the recent fundamental work of H. T. 
Brown and his coworkers on the chemistry of barley and malt in 
their attempt to establish definite relations between the outward char- 
acteristics of barley -and the chemical and physiological differences 
as shown by analysis. They likewise studied the methods of esti- 
mating the various nitrogenous constituents of both barley and malt, 
and the migration of these constituents from the endosperm to the 
embryo during the process of malting. Their results show that after 
nine days malting 35 per cent of the nitrogenous constituents of the 
endosperm become soluble and diffusible and are transported to the 
embryo. These soluble proteins are present in malt and are found 
in wort in small amounts. They are supposed by some investigators 
to exert a relatively large influence on the character of the finished 
product. Brown has divided those soluble and noncoagulable nitrog- 
enous compounds into six classes: Albumoses, peptones, amidamin, 
ammonia, organic bases, and residual or undetermined protein. On 
the other hand, Osborne b divides the proteins of the whole barley 
grain, amounting to 10.75 per cent, as follows, with the respective 
percentage composition given: Leucosin (albumin), 0.3 per cent, 
equals 2.79 per cent of the total protein ; proteose and edestin (globu- 
lin), 1.95 per cent, equals 18.14 per cent; hordein, 4 per cent, equals 
37.21 per cent; and insoluble protein, 4.5 per cent, equals 41.86 per 
cent of total protein. 

According to Jalowetz c the basal end of the barley contains more 
protein than the distal end, the least amount being found in the mid- 
dle of the berry. In the ear of the plant the right and left longi- 
tudinal halves have the same percentage of protein, whereas the 
grains on the upper half of the heads are richer in nitrogen than 
those on the lower half, but the amount of nitrogen per individual 
berry is constant in all sections of the head; the small berries grown 
on the less perfectly matured heads of the secondary stalks are richer 

ffi Trans. Guinness Res. Lab., 1903, 1 (1) : 96-127. 
6 Amer. Chein. J., 1895, 17: 539. 

c Zts. gesani. Brauw., 1906, 29: 172; through Biedermann's Centrbl., 1906, 
36: 229. 



10 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 

in nitrogen than are the well-matured grains found on the main 
stalks, thus showing that a sample of barley even though coming 
from a single field and representing one variety may vary much in 
percentage of protein in individual kernels. 

Schjerning ° has studied the growing barley plant with special ref- 
erence to the nitrogenous compounds, analyzing the plants at three 
different stages of their development, namely, at green, yellow, and 
full ripeness. Beginning with the formation of the grain, at green 
ripeness, he analyzed the berries up to the full-ripe stage and con- 
cluded that " barley has acquired its full maturity when the con- 
version of the soluble into insoluble carbohydrates and soluble into 
insoluble proteins has reached its maximum," and that the ripening 
of barley is a process tending toward a state of equilibrium in respect 
to its nitrogenous constituents; when properly ripened barley is har- 
vested very little loss due to respiration takes place during storage. 
Over ripeness is characterized as a loss of substance. He found that 
on ripening the percentage of soluble nitrogen in the total nitrogen 
decreased from 45 to 18 and that the amidamin nitrogen decreased 
from 28 to 5 per cent. Only traces of proteoses and small amounts 
of peptones were found. He showed that early harvested barley is 
poorer in protein than the fully matured grain, and that the chemical 
composition is not influenced by species, variety, or type of barley, 
but is affected by the character of the soil and climatic conditions. 
The length of the growing period, cultivation, and climatic conditions 
influence the nitrogen content also, and therefore the quality of 
barley can not be determined from the amount of this constituent 
alone. 

This agrees with the researches of Kukla, & Jalowetz, c Prior , d Wahl, e 
and others. These investigators have shown that high protein bar- 
leys often give a better malt, which produces a better beer than a 
malt made from a barley of lower nitrogen content. Kukla also 
concludes that it is not so much the total protein of barley which in- 
fluences the quality of the beer as it is the character of the nitrogenous 
compounds. In his important contribution on the chemistry of 
barley and malt, Prior f has shown that the consideration of the 
amount of hordein (alcohol-soluble protein) and of the insoluble 
protein constituents of the endosperm is more important than that 
of the total protein, which should only be considered when above 13 
per cent. The hordein he finds located principally near the embryo, 

Conipt. rend, travaux lab., Carlsberg, 1906. 6 : 229. 
6 Zts. gesani. Brauw., 1900, 23: 418. 
Mbid., 1906, 29: 172. 
* Wochenschr. Brau., 1905, 22: 52. 
e Arner. Brew. Rev., 1907, 21: 274. 

f Allgem. Zts. Bierbran. Malzfabr., 1905, 33: 341, 412; through J. Inst. Brew., 
1906, 12: 159. 



REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. 11 

extending to about the middle of the kernel; whereas the insoluble 
protein is found near the periphery of the endosperm. The best 
barleys for brewing purposes are those containing a medium amount 
of protein, namely, from 10.5 to 12 per cent. He finds that the 
hordein and the insoluble proteins rise in general with the total 
protein. 

The increase of protein is always followed by a decrease of one 
or more of the other constituents of barley. The opposite is also 
true. The protein substances, from the standpoint of the brewer and 
maltster, are now being considered as of the utmost importance, and 
a relation between them and the starch was one of the first to be 
noted. Haase showed that an increase of protein was followed by 
a corresponding decrease of starch. This law was based on results 
obtained, during several years, from Silesian barleys, and appeared 
to hold good for this variety. As the relation was not found to be 
true in regard to other barleys, it has been the subject of much 
controversy. 

It is well known that barleys present differences in physical ap- 
pearance. Some grains show a mealy or floury endosperm, while the 
endosperm of others is flinty and translucent. The reasons for these 
differences and the influence which they exert on malting and brew- 
ing and the relation between the character of the grain and the 
protein content have likewise been the subjects of much study. Brown 
has observed that steely grains can often be converted into the mealy 
kind ; that is, made mellow, through artificial maturation by steeping 
or even by weathering after harvest. Johannsen ffl long ago showed 
that the difference between a mealy and a steely or glassy barley 
was due to the greater number of air spaces in the endosperm of the 
former, and that in the original condition barleys show no relation 
between the degree of glassiness and the percentage of nitrogen. In 
1868 Jacobsen wrote, in correspondence, that in England it was the 
general opinion that glassiness and the protein content of barley 
were related. In 1879 Groenlund wrote an essay in which he showed 
that early harvested barley can be just as mellow as later harvested 
barley, and that glassy barley may become mealy by steeping and 
subsequent drying. He examined 47 different barleys, 6 and con- 
cluded that glassy barleys did not always contain more protein than 
mealy ones, but that very often the opposite is true. Schultze c like- 
wise found no relation between glassy kernels and the nitrogen con- 
tent, but noted that mealy kernels may contain more nitrogen than 
steely ones. In 1870 Nowacki d showed that the difference between a 



a Compt. rend, travaux lab., Carlsberg, 1884, 2 : 60. 

6 Zts. gesain. Brauw., 1SS6, 9: 288. 

c IbicL, 1881, 4: 62. 

a Uutersuchungen tiber das Reifen des Getreides, Halle, 1870. 



12 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 

mealy and a glassy wheat was due to the small air spaces imprisoned 
between the starch granules of the mealy grains and that the specific 
gravity of the mealy grains was less than that of the flinty. Munro 
and Beaven ° likewise showed that the specific gravity of mealy ker- 
nels is less, due to the larger amount of interstitial air, and that 
the nitrogen content of such grains is lower, in consequence of which 
they modify better than do the steely grains. Groenlund h called 
attention to the fact that when glassy kernels are steeped and then 
dried some, of the grains become mellow while others remain un- 
changed. This procedure distinguishes between apparent and real 
glassiness, and upon this fact Prior b bases his method for the determi- 
nation of the degree of dissolution of barley, which consists of the 
sum of the mealy grains originally present and the percentage of 
steely grains which become mealy on steeping. This factor shows 
that the higher the protein content the lower, as a rule, is the degree 
of dissolution. A later contribution by Prior called attention for 
the first time to the role played by the variety of barley on this 
determination; that what was true of one variety was not neces- 
sarily so of another; that is, in some varieties the steely grains are 
more easily modified than in others. H. T. Brown 6 likewise devel- 
oped a method for the estimation of the coefficient of mealiness, results 
of which give indication to a certain extent of the value of a barley 
for brewing or feeding purposes, as he finds that a high coefficient 
of mealiness is generally accompanied by a low protein content, or 
vice versa. 

Jalowetz h investigated the relation between the protein content 
and the character of the endosperm and agreed with other authors 
that mealy grains are lower in protein than flinty ones. Instead of 
soaking or steeping the grains for several days at 45° C. and subse- 
quently drying slowly (Brown's method), he suggests that the grain 
be treated with 40 per cent formalin at the temperature of a boiling 
water bath for from twenty to thirty minutes. After washing the 
grains free from formalin and drying them between filters, the charac- 
ter of the endosperm may be immediately examined. This method is 
claimed by its author to give a good indication of the value of barley. 
Beaven d shows that the amount of nitrogen and the quality are closely 
related, and that high nitrogen barley, accompanied by a steely 
character of the endosperm, has a higher specific gravity, and that 
twice as much alcohol-soluble protein is found in such barley as in 
mealy grains. He also intimates that the nitrogen determination 
is only useful as an index of quality, other things being equal, and 

a Brown, Trans. Guinness Res. Lab., 1903, 1 (1) : 96-127. 

6 Loc. cit. 

c Wochenschr. Bran., 1905, 22: 412. 

d J. Fed. Inst. Brew., 1902, 8: 542. 



REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. 13 

that the size of the grain affects the quantity of extract, the large 
grains giving more extract than small grains of the same protein 
content. Beaven considers that the specific gravity of barley may 
afford a fair index as to quality, and that generally the specific 
gravity decreases as maturation increases. 

Somewhat later Harz ° declared that glassiness of barley is not due 
to the larger protein content, but to certain kinds of protein sub- 
stances and to the mechanical combination with the rest of the sub- 
stances forming the cell. Prior 6 separated the different kinds of 
proteins and determined their relation to one another and their in- 
fluence on the mellowness of the barley. He found that the causes 
of the apparent glassiness are the water-soluble nitrogen-free and 
nitrogen-containing constituents of the endosperm, constituents which 
are colloidal in character and which cement the starch-containing cells 
firmly together. When these apparently steely barleys are steeped the 
cementing constituents dissolve. The real glassiness is due to the ce- 
menting of the starch-containing cells by means of the hordein and 
the insoluble protein. In collaboration with Hermann, Prior c found 
that when a 100 per cent steely barley was steeped first in 50 per cent 
alcohol and then in 75 per cent alcohol at 45° to 50° C, and subse- 
quently dried, the steely barleys became altogether mealy. Previous 
steeping in water was not necessary. Baker and Hulton d have re- 
cently corroborated Prior's work regarding the fact that permanently 
or temporarily glass}' grains depend upon the presence of nitrogenous 
or nonnitrogenous colloids. 

.Until recently most investigators, especially in Europe, have ob- 
jected to the use of high-protein barley for brewing purposes on the 
grounds that such barleys give less extract and that this qualit}^ is 
more or less intimately correlated with the flinty character of the 
endosperm. The latter characteristic is generally held to be an unde- 
sirable quality rendering the dissolution of the barley kernels more 
difficult and resulting in glassy malt. Haase has taken an extreme 
view of the situation and condemned all barleys containing over 10 
per cent of protein. This investigator has, however, gradually re- 
ceded from his original position, because so many authors have shown 
that good malts (which produce good beer) could be made from 
barleys containing much over 10 per cent protein, and furthermore, 
during 1905, 75 per cent of the Silesian barleys on which he based 
his argument for low-protein barley contained over 11 per cent of 
protein. 

a Zts. gesani. Brauw., 1904, 27: 558. 

6 Allgero. Zts. Bierbrau. Malzfabr., 1906, 34: 513. 

c Ibid., 190S, 36 : 102. 

d J. Inst. Brew., 1907, 13: 328. 



14 STUDIES OF AMEBICAN BAELEYS AND MALTS. 

Regarding the relation between extract yield and the percentage 
of nitrogen, Neumann a substantiates Haase's law that an increase of 
protein is regularly followed by a decrease in extract, His conclu- 
sions are that a good brewing barley should not only contain a low 
percentage of protein but should give a high extract yield. Further- 
more, in high-protein barleys the carbohydrates are more ener- 
getically consumed in respiration. On the other hand, a good, 
distiller's barley may be high in protein, but its most essential quality 
is its high diastatic power. 

Wahl, in his previous writings, has shown that moderately high- 
protein barleys, when properly malted and brewed, may give even 
better results than low-protein barleys, as the former are possessed 
of high vital energy and develop strong enzymatic power during 
malting, so that the resulting malts are especially rich in both diastase 
and peptase. The malts from such barleys are not only able to prop- 
erly saccharify more starch than they themselves contain, but during 
malting and mashing a comparatively large quantity of protein is 
rendered soluble by the peptase, the beers produced from such malts 
being richer in nitrogenous compounds than beers produced from 
low-protein barley malts. 6 

In his work on malt and beer, Evans c shows that though the nitro- 
gen question is of importance, it is secondary to the study of the 
starch conversion products produced during malting and mashing. 
He intimates, however, that much of the color, flavor, and foam of 
beer is due to the presence of the nitrogenous constituents. Another 
investigation of importance which should be mentioned is that of 
Bleisch and Regensburger," which showed that the amount of husks 
increased with the nitrogen, and the loss during malting also grew 
larger. They advocate the direct determination of the extract as a 
factor furnishing more reliable data as to the brewing value of bar- 
ley and malt than does the determination of nitrogen. 

Luff's e work, however, showed no relation between the amount of 
husks and the percentage of protein. He determined the percentage 
of husk by treating 150 kernels of barley with 10 cc of 5 per cent 
ammonium hydroxid in a closed flask, heated in a water bath at 80° C. 
for one hour. On transferring the kernels from the flask, the husks 
may easily be separated from the grains. Haase and Bauer ' have 
shown that a winter barley contains more husks than one with a 
shorter period of growth and a late ripening variety more than an 

a Wochenschr. Brau., 1905, 22: 98. 

& Wahl, Anier. Brew. Rev., 1904, 18: 485. 

o J. Inst. Brew., 1906, 12 : 209. 

<*Zts. gesani. Brauw., 1905, 28: 628. 

"Ibid., 1898, 21: 603. 

f Wochenschr. Brau., 1907, 24 : 535. 



KEVIEW OF THE LITERATUEE. 15 

early ripening one. The amount of husks is greater in the starch- 
poor grains than in full, plump grains, and there is a tendency toward 
an increase of husks as the weight per 1,000 grains decreases. The 
husk content does not seem to be influenced by the soil, fertilizers, or 
width of drills. It is more a varietal characteristic and depends much 
upon the length of the growing period. 

In their paper on conditions affecting the quality of barley Munro 
and Beaven « found that the amount of nitrogen in the grain depends 
more on the character of the season than upon soil conditions, and 
that the application of phosphates as a fertilizer improves the quality 
of barley to a greater extent than does the use of potash, soda, or 
magnesia, while barnyard manure increases the yield, but lowers the 
general quality. They also found that the lack of color in a barley, 
which is often due to -bad weather conditions, can be remedied by 
artificial drying. Schneidewind & showed that with the same condi- 
tions of manuring, crops which were high in yield were generally low 
in protein content. Wein's experiments pointed out that nitrogen 
and phosphates promoted protein formation and that potash in- 
fluenced the yield and the percentage of starch, thus improving the 
quality of the crop. He also showed that the barley plant required a 
large amount of plant food at the early stages of growth. 

Voelcher** showed that the application of nitrogenous fertilizers 
alone gives a barley of low weight per bushel and of low valuation 
for brewing purposes, but of high quality from a distiller's stand- 
point. He quotes Hall as saying that the variety of the barley, 
rather than the manure used, exerts the chief influence on the nitro- 
gen content. Manuring exerts no influence on the thickness of 
husks. In this connection Eckenbrecher e has conclusively shown 
that climatic conditions and soil exert a far greater influence on the 
amount of nitrogen, the weight per 1,000, and the weight per bushel 
than does variety or species. This author grew 6 different varieties 
of barley in 12 different localities and found that every variety 
grown in any one locality had very nearly the same percentage of 
nitrogen, weight per 1,000, and weight per bushel, but that any one 
variety when grown in the 12 localities showed a marked differ- 
ence in composition, in size, and in weight of berry ; in fact, whereas 
in one locality a certain type of barley contained 9 per cent of pro- 
tein, in another locality the protein, content was over 11 per cent. 
Tedinf also has shown that the protein content is not a race char- 
acteristic, and Kiessling? has demonstrated that the nitrogen con- 
tent of barley is more dependent on the weather conditions and 

a J. Roy. Agr. Soc, 1900, 11: 185. e Wochenschr. Bran., 1907 21- 491 

6 Wochensckr. Brau., 1905, 22: 29. f Bot. Centrbl., 1907. 101: 3S3 

c Zts. gesani. Brauw., 1906, 29: 141. ^Zts. gesam. Branw., 190S, 31: 84 

d J. Inst. Brew., 1906, 12 : 408. 
72246— Bull. 124—09—^-2 



16 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 

the nature of the soil than upon variety. The size of grain, however, 
he considers generally a racial characteristic. In his experiments 
with barley Reitmair found that phosphorus did not affect the 
protein content, that there was no relation between the nitrogen of 
the seed and that of the crop, and that the extract yield and protein 
content are not transmittable qualities. According to Hubert, 6 the 
yield and protein content are dependent on the weather conditions 
between the flowering and ripening periods, and the application of 
fertilizers can not overcome the climatic conditions. The same 
author emphasizes the necessity of having pure barley races, which 
can be obtained only with the assistance of the botanist. . He shows 
further that pure races will grow more evenly and will give more 
uniform results on the malting floor. 

Regarding experiments on the changes in composition which take 
place during malting, Windisch and Vogelsang c showed that in 
germination and mashing the organic phosphorus of barley and malt 
is hydrolyzed into the inorganic form. They corroborated the 
results of Hart and Andrews/ who showed that there was practically 
no inorganic phosphorus in barley. Schulze and Castoro e likewise 
found that in malting part of the organic phosphorus compounds 
were converted into the inorganic form soluble in water; that in 
mashing nearly all of the phosphorus compounds were thus trans- 
formed, and that the phosphates found in beer wort were inorganic. 

In studying the changes which the proteins undergo during malt- 
ing and mashing, Weis f found that the amount of soluble protein 
increased while the salt-soluble and alcohol-soluble nitrogen com- 
pounds, globulin and hordein, respectively, decreased, new com- 
pounds with other characteristics being formed in their stead. 

Several recent contributions discuss the botanical and physiological 
characters of the barley plant in more or less detail. Barnstein o 
discusses not only the chemistry of barley, its digestibility and use as 
a food, but also its anatomical characteristics. He shows that the 
aleuron layer may be two or four cells in thickness, a fact which may 
have important bearing when high-protein barley is being considered 
for brewing purposes, for it has been shown that this layer remains 
practically unchanged during the processes of malting and mashing. 
Beaven h brings out the morphological differences between the 

ffi Vanha, Kyas, Bukovansky, Cnem. Centrbl., 1905, 76: 695. 

6 Ann. brass, dist, 1907, 10: 347. 

c Wochenschr. Brau., 1906, 23: 556. 

<*New York Agr. Exp. Sta., Bui. 238. 

e Zts. physiol. Chein., 1904, 41: 477. 

fZts. gesam. Brauw., 1904, 27: 385, 405, 420, 440. 

^Landw. Vers.-Stat., 1905, 63: 275. 

h Loc. cit. 



KINDS OF BARLEY. 17 

varieties, giving a classification based on the varying structure. He 
has shown that the amount of husks or palse is greater in 6-row 
barleys and that they act as a protection against mold. Barleys have 
also been studied from the physical and botanical view points by 
Lloyd, Broili, & Atterberg and Tedin, and in this country by Nilson. d 
The last mentioned has shown that the common Oderbrucker or 
Manchurian barleys are made up of two distinct types, one with 
short and the other with long haired basal bristles, the former pre- 
dominating to the extent of about 80 per cent. Besides this difference, 
it has been noted that the first pair of veins on the husk on the dorsal 
side of certain barleys are dentated like a saw, while in other grains 
the veins, are smooth. These and other similar morphological dif- 
ferences are used in distinguishing the varieties of barley, but Broili 
has shown that there are many other varietal differences, for example, 
the hairiness of the lodicules, all of which must be considered in de- 
termining whether a race is pure. 

An important study has been made by Wilfarth, Romer, and 
Wimmer c on the amount of plant food assimilated by barley during 
the period of its development in the field. These authors analyzed 
the growing barley at four different stages of growth for the usual 
plant constituents and found that at the heading period more potash, 
soda, and nitrogen are present in the plants per acre than at any 
subsequent period. The explanation given is that the roots of the 
growing plant excrete these plant-food elements. More recent in- 
vestigations by Le Clerc and Breazeale f showed that the assumption 
of such an excretion through the roots of growing barley or other 
plants is erroneous. These authors found that the great loss of plant- 
food elements noted in barley during the growing period is caused 
by rain and other atmospheric agencies. 

KINDS OF BARLEY. 

Barley has been grown for thousands of years. According to 
Doctor Lauth a it was grown in China some two thousand years ago, 
and in Egypt even as far back as six thousand years, as is shown by 
the pictures of sheaves and ears of Flordeum hexastichwm on ancient 
coins. It thrives in widely different climates, from Algeria to Nor- 

a Amer. Brew. Rev., 1906, 20: 79. 

6 Dissert. Jena, 1906; also J. Landw., 1908, 56: 121. 

c Woehenschr. Bran., 1907, 24: 172. 

d Amer. BreW. Rev., 1904, 18: 413; 1906, 20: 475. 

e Landw. Vers.-Stat, 1905, 63: 1. 

f U. S. Dept. Agr., Yearbook, 1908. 

^Anier. Brew. Rev., 1906, 20: 258. 



f\ 18 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 

way and Iceland, and will even grow at an elevation of over 10,000 
feet, 

The greater portion of the barley grown in this country is 6-rowed, 
most of which is of the Manchurian type, commonly called " 4-rowed 
barley." This barley is grown principally in the North Central and 
Middle Western States and the States of the Great Plains. The 
original source of this barley was Manchuria. From there it was 
introduced into Germany about 1859, and in 1861 was introduced into 
Wisconsin, where, on account of its prolific character, it rapidly 
spread. The barleys discussed in this bulletin may be classified as 
follows : 

The 6-row barleys of the Manchurian and similar types have a 
relatively high protein content, generally above 11 per cent, the 
berries being rather small (from 25 to 32 grams per 1,000), with 
medium thickness of husks. They germinate on the floor in about 
five days, the malts having rather high enzymic power. Hayduck a 
established the fact that a high protein malt has a correspondingly 
high diastatic power. Such barley is, according to Wahl, especially 
adapted for the preparation of chill-proof beers and for pasteurized 
bottled beers. The extract from fine grist may be as high as 75 per 
cent. The Oderbrucker is similar to the Manchurian in all particu- 
lars and was introduced into this country about eight years ago by 
the Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station. Although the malt 
produced from this barley is quite generally used in brewing in this 
country, it is especially adapted on account of its high enzymic powers 
for the production of alcohol. 

In the Pacific coast States a similar form, known as " Bay Brew- 
ing," is being quite extensively grown. In Utah, and a few local 
points in other States, there is groAvn a type of barley locally known 
as "Utah Winter" (sometimes called "White Club"), with 6 sym- 
metrically arranged rows, which is adapted to brewing purposes. 
Both of these barleys have a rather low protein content, generally 
below 10.5 per cent, a high weight per 1,000 (30 to 40 grams), require 
a longer time for germination, and develop less enzymic power. The 
fine grist yield of extract from Bay Brewing barley malt is about 68 to 
70 per cent, and from Utah Winter, 71 to 74 per cent. The Bay Brewing 
variety has a thick husk, while the Utah Winter has a relatively thin 
husk. The 2-row barleys are grown in Montana, Idaho, Colorado, 
and California. They contain less than 11 per cent of protein on an 
average, weigh about from 35 to 40 grams per 1,000, have thin husks, 
require a longer time to germinate than does the 6-row variety of the 
Manchurian type, and develop less enzymic power. The fine grist 
yield of extract from malts of Hanna or Chevalier type is from 75 to 
80 per cent. 

"Delbriick, J. Inst. Brew., 1906, 12: 643. 



BARLEY VALUATION. 19 

Each kind of barley, whether 2-row or 6-row, varies in the num- 
ber of glassy kernels and in its physical and chemical character- 
istics according to the conditions under which it grew, the climate 
playing a prominent part in the production of a low or high protein 
barley and, in fact, in the production of a first-class barley or one 
of luMesirable quality. 

BARLEY VALUATION. 
THE BERLIN AND VIENNA SYSTEMS. 

To value a barley for malting or brewing is to ascertain the phys- 
ical, chemical, and physiological properties which it possesses. The 
maltster, the agricultural distiller, and the brewer are offered all 
grades of barley. They must know how to judge each, be able to 
distinguish the favorable or unfavorable factors, and to calculate 
the value of the product therefrom; and for this purpose various 
systems of. valuation have been evolved. These should not only be 
exact, but also be simple enough to allow the various factors to be 
easily and quickly determined. For brewing purposes, malt forms the 
raw material from which the product is made; from the distiller's 
view point, malt is but the means to an end. Thus barley is more 
or less valuable according to the class of malt it will yield and the 
use to which this malt is put. 

The two methods most frequently used for the valuation of brew- 
ing barley were the Berlin and the Vienna systems. The former is 
somewhat older than the latter and depends mainly upon subjective 
tests — that is, data obtained from outward observation or perception — 
whereas the Vienna system relies more on objective tests ; that is, on 
data determined in the laboratory by scientific methods. Although 
these systems are primarily used in valuating barley for brewing pur- 
poses, they may be applied to distillers' barley, when properly inter- 
preted. Since the systems were first introduced, they have undergone 
a number of modifications. The Berlin system, as modified in 1908, 
according to Cluss,° involves the following factors: (1) Protein in 
dry substance, (2) color, (3) uniformity, (1) weight of 1,000 grains, 
(5) fineness of husks, (6) mealiness, and (7) purity of sample. 
From the sum of these factors are deducted from 1 to 24 points for 
injured grains, germinated grains, and bad odor. 

Each determination is valued on a basis of 9 points, and, in addi- 
tion, the most important factors, Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, are valued on a 
double basis (2X1-9 points). Neumann 6 also multiplies the factor 
" purity " by 2, and Cluss c gives a double value to " mealiness." 
It is thus possible for a perfect barley to be rated at 100 points, in 

a Monatsh. Landw., 1908, No. 1. c Loc. cit. 

& Wochenscbr. Brau., 1907. 24 : 421. 



20 



STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 



which case it is designated as " very fine.' 1 When a barley has been 
given less than 18 points, it is considered bad. 

Quality of barley a* reckoned by /joints. 

18-30 Poor. 67-78 Good to fine. 

31-42 Fair. 79-90 Fine. 

43-54 Medium. 91-100 Fine to very fine. 

55-66 Good. Over 100 Very fine. 

Valuation of barley according to protein content. 
(Modified Berlin system.) 



Protein 
content. 



Per cent. 

Over 14 
13.1-14 
12. 1-13 
11.6-12 
11.1-11.5 
10. 6-11 
10.1-10.5 
9 -10 

Under 9 



Designation. 



Valuation 
by points. 



Bad ! IX 2=2 

Poor i 2 X 2=4 

Pair I 3X2=6 

Medium : 4 X 2=8 

Good i 5 X 2=10 

Good to fine 6X2=12 

Fine 7 X 2=14 

Fine to very fine ; 8X2=16 

Very fine 9X 2=18 



The protein content together with the weight per 1,000 grains 
form the two principal factors, and more than any others indicate 
the extract yield of the malt. Neumann a considers that they are a 
better guide in this respect than the determination of extract in 
barley. 

Total number of points obtainable for barley rated according to protein content. 



Protein 
content. 


Maximum 

total 
valuation. 


Protein 
content. 


Maximum 

total 
valuation. 


Points. 
2 
4 
6 

8 


Points. 
16 
26 
37 
48 


Points. 
10 
12 
14 
16 


Points. 

59 

70 

' 81 

92 



The value of having uniform grains is that the barley takes up 
moisture more evenly on steeping and grows at the same rate on the 
floor, the dissolution of the endosperm being thus more uniformly 
effected. The purity of the grain is obtained by shaking 100 grams 
of barley in a set of sieves, graded at 2.2, 2.5, and 2.8 mm, at the 
rate of from 210 to 220 revolutions per minute for three minutes. 
In this way the uniformity factor is also obtained. The greater the 
proportion of the barley found on any two adjacent sieves the higher 
is the uniformity factor, or inversely ; when less than 50 per cent of 
the barley is found in sieves Nos. I and II, or Nos. II and III, the 



a Loc. cit. 



BAKLEY VALUATION. 



21 



ratino- is 1X2, or 2 points. The more evenly the sample is divided 
among the three sieves the less uniform it is. 

Rating of barley by proportion found on adjacent sieves. 
[Modified Berlin system.] 



Barley 
found. 


Points as 
rated. 


Barley 
found. 


Points as 
rated. 


Per cent. 
50-60 
60-70 
70-75 
75-80 


2X2 or 4 
3X2 or 6 
4X2 or 8 
5X2 or 10 


Per cent. 

80-85 

85-90 

90-95 

Over 95 


6X2 or 12 
7X2 or 14 
8X2 or 16 
9X2 or 18 



The weight per 1,000 grains is also doubly valued. The valuation 
as based on the dry weight of 1,000 grains is shown in the following 
table : 

Valuation of barley as calculated from weight of a thousand grams. 
(Modified Berlin system.) 



Weight of 


Points as 


Weight of 


Points as 


1,000 grains. 


rated. 


1,000 grains. 


rated. 


Grams. 




Grams. 




Under 30. 


1X2 or 2 


43-44.9... 


6X2 or 12 


30-34.9... 


2X2 or 4 


45-46.9... 


7X2 or 14 


35-37. 9. . . 


3X2 or 6 


47-48.9... 


8X2 or 16 


38-40.9... 


4X2 or 8 


Over 49.. 


9X2 or 18 


41-42.9... 


5X2 or 10 







The principal change as compared with the former Berlin system 
is that of giving double value to the protein, uniformity, weight of 
grain, fineness of husks, and sometimes to purity and mealiness, and 
making the whole number of points obtainable depend on the pro- 
tein content. The first Berlin system was restricted to the follow- 
ing tests: Color, weight, uniformity, fineness of husks, mealiness, 
and purity of samples, together with the negative points, namely, 
odor, damaged grains, and started grains. In 1897 the protein and 
weight per hectoliter were added to these subjective tests. Since 
1903, under the influence of Haase, the nitrogen factor has become 
predominant in the Berlin system, this and the size of the grain, or 
weight per 1,000, constituting the two chief factors of this system. 

The present modified and improved Vienna system is based on the 
following objective factors: (1) Weight per hectoliter; (2) weight 
per 1,000; (3) screenings (assortment); (4) impurity; (5) real 
(6) protein; and on the following subjective factors: 
(2) uniformity; (3) shape of grain; (4) fineness of 
impression, deducting for odor and injured 



steeliness ; 
(1) Color; 
husks; (5) 
grains. 



general 



a Vorschrift fur die Vorbereitvmg u. Durchfuhruni 
stenprobe, Wien, 1907. 



iler Bonitierung der Ger- 



22 



STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 
OBJECTIVE FACTORS. 



The weight per hectoliter is obtained by actual weighing of the 
sample. The points given for this factor are as follows : 

Valuation of barley according to weight. 



Weight of barley. 


Rating. 


Per hectoliter. 


Per bushel. 


Per thousand. 


Kilograms. 

Over 70 

67-70 

66-67 

Under 66 


Pounds. 

54 

52-54 

51.3-52 

51.3 


Grams. 

Over 38. 5 

36. 5-38. 4 

35-36. 4 

Under 35 


Points. 
3 
2 
1 




The assortment factor is obtained from the percentage of the 
sample which passes through a 2.2 mm sieve, and the sample is rated 
on this point as follows: 



Per cent. 

0-1 _. 

1.1-2 __ 

2.1-3 __ 



Points. 

4 

.__ 3 
2 



Per cent. 
3.1-4 __. 
4.1-5 



Points. 
.__ 1 
__ 



Impurity means the amount of weeds, chaff, dirt, etc., which a 
sample may contain, and is rated as follows: 



Per cent. 

0-O.2_ 

0.3-0.5- 

0.6-1 __ 



Points. 

__ 4 

__ 3 

2 



Per cent. 
1.1-1.5— 
Over 1.5 . 



Points. 
1 




Eeal steeliness or permanent steely grains are given the follow- 
ing points : 



Per cent. 
0-10 __ 
10-20 _ _ 
20-30__ 
30-40 __ 



Points. 
6 
5 

.__ 4 
.__ 3 



Per cent. 
40-50 — 
50-60 — 
Over 60. 



Points. 

._.. 2 
1 




Protein (on dry basis) is rated as follows, all barleys containing 
more than 14 per cent being rejected : 



Per cent. 
Under 10 
10-10.4 __ 
10.5-10.9- 
11-11.4 __ 



Points. 
6 

.__ 5 

.:_ 4 

.__ 3 



Per cent. 

11,5-11.9 

12-12.9 

13 and over deduct 



Points. 

2 

.__ 1 



SUBJECTIVE FACTORS. 



Color is graded as follows : Very good, 3 ; good, 2 ; medium, 1 ; 
bad, 0. 

The uniformity and shape of the kernels is graded : Excellent, 4 ; 
very good, 3 ; good, 2 ; medium, 1 ; bad, 0. 



BAKLEY VALUATION. 23 

The shape for brewing purposes is preferably plump and well 
closed. Too thin kernels, or even too plump kernels, are of less value. 

The fineness of the husks indicated by the wrinkles and folds is 
given the following Values : Especially fine, 6 ; very fine, 5 ; fine, 4 ; 
less fine, 3 ; rather coarse, 2 ; coarse, 1 ; thick skin, 0. 

The factors odor and injured grains are negative; that is, 1 point 
is deducted for bad odor and 2 points for injured grains. General 
impression is graded as follows: Excellent, 3; very good, 2; good, 1; 
bad, 0. 

It is seen that the Vienna system relies more on the laboratory and 
scientific method than does the Berlin system, and is an improvement 
not only in this respect, but also in that it values the different factors 
according to their importance and attaches less weight to the protein 
content of the barley. 

According to the Berlin system the principal factors a in barley 
valuation are protein content, mealiness, the percentage of husks, 
and the fineness of husks. Next in importance come the siftings and 
uniformity of grain, and of least importance are weight per bushel, 
weight per 1,000, and color. Cluss considers the protein content as 
the most significant factor, and that the weight per bushel, weight 
per 1,000 grains, and amount of husks indicate the amount of val- 
uable constituents in barley. He also finds objections to taking the 
percentage of husks into consideration on the grounds that a properly 
thrashed barley would contain more husks, and therefore be preju- 
diced in comparison to short and possibly injured grains. 

Haase & claims that the husks and the shape of the grain afford a 
certain indication as to quality, but are of secondary importance, 
stating that, as a rule, the finer the husks the greater the number of 
damaged kernels. 

According to Prior, c the subjective tests should be considered only 
in connection with the chemical and physical tests. He believes that 
the color may indicate the presence of unripe grains or those slightly 
damaged and browned by bad weather conditions, and the shape may 
give indication as to variety and fitness for brewing, the plump grains 
being ordinarily better than the long, thin grains because they contain 
more starch as well as more nitrogen. The weight per bushel, in 
connection with the weight per 1,000 grains, is important in showing 
whether or not a sample consists of light barley and therefore con- 
tains less starch and produces less extract. Very heavy grains, how- 
ever, malt rather stubbornly, and on that account medium-size barley 
is preferred. Prior would not consider the protein content as of 
much importance except when above 13 per cent. When below 13 

a Cluss, Allgem. Zts. Bierbr. Malzfabr., 1906, vol. 34, No. S. 

6 Woebenscbr. Bran., 1906, 23:35. 

c Allgem. Zts. Bierbr. Malzfabr., 1907, vol. 85, January. 



24 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 

per cent the nature of the protein constituents should be considered. 
Both Regensburger ° and Kukla 6 agree with Prior that the quality of 
the nitrogenous constituents rather than the total nitrogen must be 
considered in valuing the barley. 

Prinz c suggests that the points in the valuation of barley should 
be, first, maturity of the grain, which he considers of greatest im- 
portance; second, the protein content; then the uniformity, odor, 
husks, shape, and damaged grain, in the order named. Uniformity, 
mellowness, and soundness are more important than color. Further- 
more, in all commercial transactions both barley and malt should be 
bought and sold on the basis of hundredweight rather than per 
bushel. Hoffmann a advocates buying barley and malt on the dry 
basis, as only dry grain is stable, it being less liable to damage and to 
attack hj mold, besides costing less for transportation. This is cer- 
tainly a most reasonable proposition/just equally to buyer and seller. 
It is no unusual occurrence for a grain to lose several per cent of 
moisture in being transported from one locality to another as, for 
example, from a humid to a dry climate. 

Regarding other criticisms of these European systems, Eckhardt e 
considers the assortment factor obtained by means of the 2.2, 2.5, and 
2.8 mm sieves as of the greatest importance, after the degree of meali- 
ness and the amount of protein, as it shows how uniform the grain is. 
Bleisch f suggests that the only criterion in the valuation of barley 
is a malting experiment on a small scale. Biffen •" regards a barley 
of good quality if it is mature, mealy, free from broken and discol- 
ored grains, germinates freely and uniformly, and has a good color 
and a finely wrinkled surface. Heron n and Salamon ' consider the 
diastatic power of malt as an exceedingly useful determination. 
Besides this, Heron generally estimates the percentage of extract, the 
specific rotatory power, tintometer value, and moisture, all of which 
give valuable information concerning malt. Hunicke i looks on the 
physical character of the endosperm as the most important factor, 
giving greatest weight to the extract content, while Wallerstein 
considers the loss during malting as the most important determina- 
tion. As regards the proteins, Wallerstein considers those formed 
in malting and found in mashing as of greater significance than the 
total protein. Kreichgauer 1; suggests that the weight per bushel in 
connection with the biting test will give a good starting point con- 

"Zts. gesam. Branw., 1905, vol. 28, f Zts. gesam. Brauw., 1899, 22: 327. 

Nos. 35 and 36. o J. Inst. Brew., 1900, 12: 345. 

6 Ibid., 1900, 23 : 418. * J. Fred Inst. Brew., 1902, 8 : 666. 

c Amer. Brew. Rev., 1907, 21 : 589. i Ibid., p. 2. 

a Wochenschr. Bran., 1906, 23 : 534. 'i J. Amer. Chem. Soc, 1904, 26 : 1211. 

p Zts. gesam. Branw., 1906, 29; 523. k Wochenschr. Bran., 1905, 24: 171. 



BARLEY VALUATION. 25 

cerning the value of the barley. In a later communication Jalowetz a 
recommends that the protein content of the individual grains be taken 
into consideration instead of the percentage of protein. 

A good barley should be sound, have a high germinating power, 
be rich in starch, and, according to the European system of valua- 
tion, low in protein. That the first requisite for good barley is life, 
high germinating power, and uniform germination needs no dis- 
cussion, and these may best be obtained by the production of pure 
races. To both systems there are more or less valid objections made, 
even by European investigators; though, on the whole, they apply 
very well to European barleys and conditions. Neither system could, 
however, be applied in valuing American 6-row barleys, since the con- 
ditions both in respect to the type of barley and to the requirements 
of the brewers are so different in the United States from those pre- 
vailing in Europe that the valuation must be made on another basis. 

Besides all these factors, a knowledge of the locality of produc- 
tion, the weather conditions prevailing during the growing period 
and at harvest, the fertilizers used, and the rotation of crops prac- 
ticed, etc., may aid in estimating the value of barley. For example, 
it is well known that a late rain discolors the grain and makes it less 
valuable, and a heavy application of nitrogenous fertilizers tends 
to increase the protein content, while, on the other hand, much sun- 
shine prevailing during the growing season tends to assure a better 
grade of barley. 

Although all the factors enumerated in both systems are im- 
portant to a greater or less extent, from a brewer's view point, yet, 
for the production of alcohol in the agricultural and industrial dis- 
tillery, some of them may well be given a secondary position. Such 
factors as fineness of husks, mealiness of endosperm, shape of grain, 
impurity, and color are of less importance in alcohol production than 
in the brewing industry, though even these factors are of help in 
valuing a distiller's barley. Recently harvested barleys have a 
low germinating power, therefore they should not be malted until 
at least three months old. The diastatic pow T er of malt is the chief 
factor when used for alcohol 'production. This factor is more or 
less influenced by the characteristics of the grain ; namely, uniformity 
as regards race and age of barley, weight per 1,000 grains, and pro- 
tein content. A good distiller's barley should have the following 
characteristics: High germinating power, high protein, uniformity, 
good color and odor, and cleanness. The malt produced therefrom 
should possess a high diastatic power, have a pleasant odor, a sweet 
and agreeable taste, and be free from dirt. As a barley rich in nitro- 
gen is generally one which will yield a malt of high euzymic power — 

a Airier. Brew. Rev., 1907, 21: 590. 



26 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 

in other words, be rich in diastase and peptase — a high nitrogen 
content of barley is more essential for distillery purposes than for 
brewing. 

ACTION OF THE BERLIN CONGRESS, 1908. 

In 1907 the question of barley valuation was considered by the 
International Agricultural Congress at Vienna, and it was deter- 
mined to submit it to a special international commission to meet in 
Berlin in October, 1908. This commission agreed on a general system 
of barley valuation which, however, was not to be applied to 4 or 6 
row barleys. The principles underlying the new international valua- 
tion system are: 

1. To establish a general system of valuation not considering varieties. 

2. To create three grades of value — a highest, a medium, and a lowest. 

3. To adopt eleven points for valuation, classified as follows: 

Highest class : 

1. Protein content (penalties for excessive protein being omitted). 

2. Bad odor. 
Second class : 

3. Uniformity (as to size). 

4. Weight (1,000 kernels). 

5. Fineness of husk. 

6. Damaged grains. 
Lowest class : 

7. Color. 

8. Purity of sample (foreign seed). 
9. . Sprouters. 

10. Purity as to variety. 

11. Shape of berry. 

The following points were omitted from the systems previously 
described herein: 

1. The mellowness of corn, either of the original barley or after steeping. 

2. Hectoliter weight. 

3. Impression as a whole. 

4. Water content of the barley. 

The germinating energy was recognized as a valuable point for 
judging barley, and it was recommended for use at competitive ex- 
hibits, but it was considered impracticable for ordinary expositions. 
This system of barley valuation, as well as the Berlin and Vienna 
systems which are modified by it, were established for the purpose of 
serving as guides to jurors of award in judging exhibit barleys, and 
consequently under circumstances necessitating the judging of large 
numbers of specimens or samples with dispatch. While in the main 
the same test points should naturally form the basic features for 
valuing barley for commercial purposes also, such important points as 
germinating capacity, the examination for which requires much time, 
can not well be undertaken for exhibit barleys ; besides, exhibits have 



BAELEY VALUATION". 27 

usually taken place soon after harvesting, when germinating capacity 
does not compare favorably with results after proper storage of bar- 
ley, the higher moisture content alone detrimentally influencing the 
property of germinating capacity to a decided degree. For this 
reason and because at the usual exhibit periods moisture content 
is considerably higher than after storage, it was not included in 
these systems of valuation. In a commercial system of valuation, 
however, germinating capacity and moisture content become the main 
points in the consideration of value, and in the tentative system for 
American barleys which follows germination capacity forms the basic 
factor of valuation, to which the importance of all other points or 
properties is made relative. 

TENTATIVE SYSTEM FOR VALUING AMERICAN BARLEY. 

The American barleys are to be classified in at least four groups — 
one comprising the eastern 6-rowed Manchuria barley, cultivated 
particularly east of the Rocky Mountains; a second, the western 
6-rowed barley, the Bay Brewing and Blue barley ; a third, the 6-rowed 
Utah Winter barley ; and a fourth, the 2-rowed barleys, the Chevalier, 
Hanna, Goldthorpe, etc. The western barleys, 2 and 6-rowed, from 
west of the Rocky Mountains or from the Rocky Mountain territory 
conform more nearly to the European standard than do the eastern. 

For each of these four groups of American barleys a model barley 
valued at 100 points is used for comparison and more or less points 
deducted according to the results of each test. A deduction of more 
than 6 points in any test or division would place a barley below 
standard. 

STANDARD BARLEY. 

Standard barley ranges from 91 to 100 points. A barley is below 
standard when it receives less than 94 points in any one of the exam- 
inations of properties described later. For commercial valuation 
divisions 1 to 8 should be included. For exhibit purposes all tests 
should be included that are feasible, omitting moisture and germina- 
ting capacity for the reasons already given. 

The total average of points is found by dividing the sum of the 
points of each test or division by the number of divisions determined. 
In this way all divisions need not be included in the test; for in- 
stance, moisture, protein, and husk may be omitted by those not hav- 
ing the facilities for making these examinations, and the relative 
value of the barley nevertheless stands for the remainder of the 
tests. 

CALCULATING THE PERCENTAGES. 

The value for each division as stated in points is established by 
the relative importance of a defection from 100 points, indicat- 
ing thereby the percentage of inferiority to the assumed model 



28 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 

barley. A barley, for instance, of which 3 per cent do not grow, 
is rated as 97 for that test or division, a deduction of 1 point being 
made for each dead berry or germ. The ungerminated barley 
berries are, however, of greater value than an equal number of 
grains of wheat or oats, these being too large and heavy to be re- 
moved by screening, blowing, or steeping. As wheat or oats may 
cause protein turbidity in the product, not more than 2 per cent 
of such grains should be permissible in a standard barley and 3 
points should be deducted for every per cent of unremovable foreign 
matter. For all offal that is removed by screening, blowing, and 
steeping, only 1 point is deducted for every per cent, because it is 
not directly harmful. This offal, together with the unremovable 
foreign matter and the sprouters, should not exceed 6 per cent in a 
standard barley. This means that a standard barley, after cleaning 
and skimming, and after deduction has been made for unremovable 
foreign matter, should yield at least 94 per cent of malting barley. 

When valuing barleys from the point of view of the maltster or 
brewer the deductions for offal should not be included in the final 
average, which should refer to the cleaned barley. Only for exhibi- 
tion purposes should the deductions for offal be included in the final 
average. A barley containing as much as 15 per cent of , screenings 
and skimmings, etc., would only yield 85 per cent of malting barley 
and could not be considered a standard barley. The 85 per cent of 
malting barley may, however, be of good or even excellent quality, 
although probably of low 1,000-berry weight. Its quality is to be 
determined by the maltster's test (divisions 1 to 12) or the brewer's 
test (divisions 2 to 14), division 6, offal, being in both cases omitted 
from the final average. The number of points deducted in one divi- 
sion should be of equal value or importance as indicating inferiority 
of quality as those in another division. Thus a Manchuria barley 
with 9 per cent of protein would lose, on account of having 2 per cent 
less protein than normal, 6 points, and its rate of inferiority would 
be considered equivalent to that of a barley with 6 per cent of berries 
not germinated, or with 3 per cent of moisture above normal, or 6 
per cent of offal, or 2 per cent of unremovable foreign seeds, or a 
1,000-kernel weight of 3 grams below or above the normal. Likewise 
a barley with 14 per cent of protein, or 2 per cent above normal, 
would be rated as to inferiority 2X3 points. 

This system is equally applicable to all four groups of American 
barley, but the normal conditions and the requirements to be met by 
the model barley are somewhat different for each group. 

TESTS OR EXAMINATIONS REQUIRED. 

For commercial valuation: (a) Merchants' or graders' tests, 1 to 8; (b) 
maltsters' tests, 1 to 12; brewers' and seed barley tests, 2 to 4. 
For exhibit valuation : Tests 2 to 14, excepting 11 and 12. 



PLAN OF THE INVESTIGATION. 29 

By subjective examination. 

1. Variety and admixtures ( Manchuria, Bay Brewing, Utah Winter, Chevalier, 

etc.) : Deduct 1 to 6 points. 

2. Color and brightness : Deduct 1 to 6 points. 

3. Odor : Deduct 1 to 6 points. 

4. Thickness of husk : Deduct 1 to 6 points. 

5. General impression; uniformity of form and size of berries (plump or 

elongated) ; thrashing (too close or insufficient) ; maturity: Deduct 1 to 
6 points. 

By objective examination,. 

6. Offal: 

By screen : Upper screen : gravel, peas, corn, etc. Lower screen : barley, 

oats, rye, rape, mustard, etc. 
By water : Skimmings, excluding sprouters. 
By blowers : Straw, barley, oats, etc. 
By cockle machine :' Broken kernels, cockle, etc. 

(In each case deduct 1 point for every per cent.) 

7. Sprouters : Deduct 6 points for every per cent. 

8. Remaining foreign matter (wheat, oats, etc.) : Deduct 3 points for every 

per cent. 

9. 1,000-berry weight : Deduct 2 points for every gram above or below 

optimum. 

10. Uniformity as to size (the sum of adjacent screens 2.8 mm+2.5 mm, or 

2.5 mm +2.2 mm, or 2.2 mm +2.0 mm, giving the highest figure) : 
100 to 80 per cent deduct point. 
SO to 74 per cent deduct 1 point. 
74 to 69 per cent deduct 2 points. 
69 to 65 per cent deduct 3 points. 
65 to 62 per cent deduct 4 points. 
62 to 60 per cent deduct 5 points. 
60 to 58 per cent deduct 6 points. 

11. Germinating capacity : Deduct 1 point for every per cent below 100. 

12. Moisture : Deduct 2 points for every per cent above 11 per cent. 

13. Protein (N X 6.25) : Deduct 2 points for every per cent above or below 

optimum. 

14. Uniformity as to variety (by botanical examination) : Deduct 2 points for 

every per cent of foreign barley or different groups (mixtures of 2, 4, or 
6 rowed barleys). 

15. Husk (not determined unless considered below standard in subjective 

examination : Deduct 3 points for every per cent above optimum. 
Bushel weight and mealiness are not considered. If barley is infested by 
weevils or other insects or stained or discolored by fungous growths, such as 
smut, mold, etc., it is absolutely condemned. 

PLAN" OF THE INVESTIGATION. 

SAMPLES AND DETERMINATIONS MADE THEREON. 

The investigation undertaken by this Bureau, of which this is the 
first report, was authorized by act of Congress, the object being to 
study barleys grown in different parts of the United States in regard 
to their use for brewing purposes. 



30 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 

The -barleys analyzed comprise 84 samples of the 6-row varieties 
of Oclerbrucker and Manchuria, 18 samples of 2-row varieties, 18 
samples of thick-skin, so-called " Bay Brewing " barleys, and 9 sam- 
ples of the thin-skin Utah Winter. From many of these samples 
malts, which were likewise subjected to critical analyses, were pre- 
pared in malting plants on a commercial scale. Realizing that chem- 
ical and physical methods must both be used in the attempt to solve 
such questions as are involved in the improvement of American bar- 
leys, it has been found advisable to make the following determinations 
on all the barley samples: Water, total nitrogen, soluble nitrogen, 
coagulable nitrogen, extract, fat, fiber, pentosans, starch, sugars, ash, 
phosphoric acid, sulphur, lecithins, weight per 1,000 grains, weight 
per bushel, character of the endosperm before and after steeping, 
degree of solubility, germinating energy and capacity, amount of 
husks, bran, endosperm, and embryo. The chemical work, however, 
is given special prominence in this study, for purely physical analyses 
alone are not enough to determine the value of barley. 

The malt samples were subjected to the following analyses : Water, 
total nitrogen, soluble nitrogen, coagulable nitrogen, extract (fine 
and coarse grist), fat, fiber, pentosans, starch, sugars, ash, phosphoric 
acid, sulphur, lecithins, weight per 1,000 grains, weight per bushel, 
character of the endosperm, the growth and overgrowth of acrospire, 
the amount of husk, bran, embryo, and endosperm. It was hoped, 
from all these determinations, that a better insight as to the changes 
going on during the process of malting would be gained, and that a 
guide for future work might be obtained. 

CHEMICAL METHODS OF ANALYSIS. 

The chemical methods of analysis employed in the Bureau of 
Chemistry were, unless otherwise described, the official methods 
adopted by the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. The 
exceptions were as follows : 

Total sulphur was determined according to the sodium peroxid 
method. 

The lecithin determination was made by extracting 10 grams of 
ground barley or malt with ether, and then extracting the residue re- 
peatedly with absolute alcohol. The ether and alcohol extracts were 
united, all volatile substances evaporated, and the residue burned with 
caustic soda to an ash. The ash was then treated in the usual way for 
phosphoric acid. The amount of phosphoric acid multiplied by 11.37 
gives the lecithin content. It is well known that alcohol will extract 
other phosphorous bodies besides lecithin proper — for example, 
kephalin ; these figures, therefore, include all the lecithin-like bodies 
soluble in alcohol and ether. 

Le Clerc and Dubois, J. Amer. Chem. Soc, 1906, 28 : 1108: 



PLAN OF THE INVESTIGATION. 31 

The soluble proteins were determined by the following method, 
described by J, S. Chamberlain : 

An amount of air-dried barley or malt equivalent to 20 grams of dry material 
was extracted with water of such a volume that the total resulting mixture 
amounted to exactly 100 cc. In order to know the volume of liquid in such 
an extraction it was necessary to determine the volume occupied by the residue 
from 20 grams of the dry barley after extraction, which was found to be 
10.77 cc. In calculating this volume, the figure obtaiued by H. T. Brown " 
for the specific gravity of the dry residue of extracted barley was used, namely, 
1.57. Subtracting the volume occupied by the dry residue of extracted barley 
from the 100 cc gives the volume of liquid actually present. An aliquot of this 
volume was taken after filtration and the nitrogen determined therein. In 
practice, however, an amount of barley was taken such that in the proportion 
of 20 grams of dry substance to 100 cc of the resulting extraction mixture 
(here will be present, after allowing for the volume occupied by the extracted 
barley, exactly 100 cc of liquid. In this way aliquots of 10 cc, 25 cc, or 
50 cc could be easily obtained; that is, 22.41 grams of dry barley in the 
proportion of 20 : 100 will require a volume of extraction liquid equaling 
112.05 cc, and 22.41 grams of dry barley will leave after extraction a dry 
residue equaling 12.06 cc. Therefore the volume of liquid present equals 
112.05—12.06=99.99 cc. 

The amount of air-dry barley to be used was then easily calculated in each 
case from the percentage of moisture in the sample, and this weight of air-dry 
material was added and extracted under the conditions just described. For 
the extraction, distilled water at room temperature was used, and the bottles 
in which the extraction took place were shaken in a revolving shaker for six 
hours. The mixture was then filtered as rapidly as possible through folded 
filter papers, the first portion of filtrate, when cloudy, being poured back upon 
the filter paper until a clear filtrate was obtained. In an aliquot of this clear 
filtrate the amount of nitrogen was determined, which, multiplied by 6.25, gave 
the protein, representing the soluble protein. 

The soluble noncoagulable protein was determined by boiling 20 cc of the 
above filtrate over a small flame until the volume was reduced to about 10 cc. 
After diluting to the original volume, the liquid was filtered, washed, and the 
noncoagulable nitrogen determined by using the whole of the filtrate. 

The soluble coagulable proteins were determined by subtracting the soluble 
noncoagulable protein from the total protein. 

The determinations made by Wahl, which require special mention, 
were as follows : 

For the soluble protein determination 50 grams of finely ground barley were 
extracted with 250 grams of water for six hours at 18° C. ±1°, stirring well 
every fifteen minutes. The loss on evaporation (approximately 0.1 gram) was 
made up by adding water until the total weight equaled 300 grams. The extract 
was filtered clear, maintaining approximately the same temperature. The total 
soluble nitrogen was determined in an aliquot of the filtrate according to Kjel- 
dahl's method. 

The coagulable nitrogen was determined by boiling 100 cc of the above fil- 
trate for thirty minutes, keeping the volume constant, filtering, and estimating 
the nitrogen in the precipitate. The factor 6.25 was used in all determinations 
in changing the percentage of nitrogen into protein. 



Loc. cit. 
72240— Bull 124—09 3 



32 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 

For the determination of the extract in barley the following method 
was used by \Vahl : 

Twenty-five grams of finely ground barley were macerated with 200 cc 
of distilled water at 65° C. and 25 cc of diastase solution added. The whole 
was immediately placed in a boiling water bath and kept at that temperature 
for one hour. The mash was then removed from the bath, boiled briskly for 
five minutes over a direct flame, stirring continuously, cooled to 60° C., and 75 
cc of the diastase solution added, the temperatui'e being kept at 60° to 75° C. 
for thirty minutes, then raised to 70° C, and held there for another thirty min- 
utes. After inversion, the mash was cooled to from 10° to 15° C, the weight 
made up to 350 grams with water, and then filtered. The specific gravity of the 
filtrate was determined by means of the pycnometer. One hundred cubic 
centimeters of diastase solution were then treated in the same way as was the 
barley mash, and after cooling were made up to 100 cc, and the specific gravity 
determined as before. The percentage of extract is calculated as follows: 



O+$+-0 



(e-ed) 100 „ 



100 -B ~ c ' n" 

in which — 

W= weight of water used in the mash. 
M— percentage of water in the barley. 
N= weight of barley used. 
wd= weight of water in the diastase solution used. 
B = percentage of extract in mash filtrate according to Balling, 
e = extract in 25 grams of barley and 100 cc of diastase solution. 
E= percentage of extract in barley. 
ed=extract in diastase solution used. 
The diastase solution was made by digesting 500 grams of finely ground malt 
with 2 liters of water for one hour at 15° C. 

Wahl's method for the determination of the extract yield a of the 
malt was as follows: 

Fifty grams of the malt plus 3 kernels are finely ground into the mashing 
beaker and are macerated with 250 cc of water at 45° C, immediately raised to 
45° C, and kept at this temperature for thirty minutes. The temperature is then 
raised 5° each five minutes until the thermometer shows 70° C. The mash is held 
at this temperature for thirty minutes. The iodin test is made when the mash 
reaches 70° C, and is repeated every five minutes until inversion has taken place. 
The mash is then cooled to about 15° C, and its net weight is made up to 450 
grams by the addition of water. The mash is thoroughly mixed, and a quan- 
tity of clear wort, sufficient for the saccharometer determination, is filtered 
through a coarse filter. The liquid is brought to a temperature of 15° C. Its 
saccharometrical indication is determined by a special Balling instrument 
standardized at 15° C. and divided into 0.05 per cent. The yield is calculated 
by the following formula, in which " S " is the saccharometer indication, " H " 
the percentage of water in the malt (both expressed in percentage of the malt), 
and " E " the yield of extract : 

8X(S00+H) 



E= 



100— s 



a Report of the Analysis Committee, U. S. Brewers' Association. 1902. 



PLAN OF THE INVESTIGATION. 33 

The yield of extract on the dry basis E' is computed from " E " by the fol- 
lowing formula : 

. E X 100 



E' = 



100 — H 



Windiscb's extract tables should be employed. The saccharifying or dia- 
static power of the malt is regarded as very good, if the iodiu test shows the 
absence of starch in the mash, when the temperature has reached 70° C. ; as 
good, if inversion takes place within five minutes, and as fair, if inversion 
takes place after ten minutes. 

To determine the protein dissolved by mashing-, 25 cc of mash 
filtrate were evaporated almost to dryness and nitrogen determined 
according to Kjeldahl's method, the coagnlable protein being deter- 
mined in the same manner as in barley. 

The growth is the ratio of the length of the acrospire to that of 
the kernel. The determination was made in duplicate by sorting 
50 kernels. 

The color of the wort was tested by Lovibond's tintometer and 
the run of the wort by personal judgment. The other determina- 
tions w-ere conducted in the same manner as for barley. 

MECHANICAL AND BIOLOGICAL METHODS OF ANALYSIS. 

The weight per 1,000 grains was determined in the Bureau of 
Chemistry by means of Kickelhayn's apparatus. 

The hulls, bran, embryo, and endosperm were all determined in 
the Microchemical Laboratory by mechanical dissection of the grain. 
The method of procedure is described by W. J. Young as follows: 

From 6 to 8 good, average grains were selected, and after weighing they 
were soaked until the hulls could be removed readily, being then subjected to 
further soaking until the endosperm was completely softened. The grains 
were finally split lengthwise, and the endosperm removed under water. The 
hulls, bran, and embryos were placed by themselves in watch glasses, and 
dried at 100° C. until loss of weight ceased. The water containing the endo- 
sperm was allowed to stand in a beaker until the starch settled, when the 
water was decanted and the sediment dried with gentle heat until moisture 
was no longer apparent, when the drying was completed at 100° C. More or 
less loss was observed as a result of this method of drying the endosperm, 
aud this loss was so great in the case of the malts that in these the endosperm 
was determined by difference. 

In the later work on barleys the endosperm was determined by dif- 
ference in order to obtain results comparable with those obtained 
from the analysis of the malts. 

The physical tests as made by Wahl are as follows : The character 
of the endosperm was determined by using the Kickelhayn grain cut- 
ter. This apparatus cuts 50 berries in two lengthwise at one time. 
The halves are then easily divided into three groups, namely, those 



34 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 

with a steely endosperm, those that are mealy, and those that are 
partly steely and partly mealy, or intermediate. 

The character of the endosperm after steeping was determined as 
follows : 

Fifty grams of barley were steeped in water at from 15° to 20° C. for twenty- 
four hours. The water was then poured off and the excess removed from the 
grains by means of blotting paper. The barley was dried in a drying oven at 
o0° C. with low draft until the weight approximated slightly less than the orig- 
inal amount taken, about 49 grams. The cutting was done in the same manner 
as described above. 

The germinating energy is represented by the percentage of grains germinated 
within three days at ordinary temperatures. The germinating capacity is 
expressed as the percentage of grains which germinated in five days. These 
tests were made by the ordinary methods for testing germination. The weight 
per bushel was found by weighing a miniature bushel. 

The degree of dissolution was determined by Prior's method: 

Steep the barley in distilled water for twenty-four hours at 15° C, drain off 
the water, removing the excess of moisture by means of filter paper, and dry at 
40° C. in an air bath for about two days ; then determine the mellowness by 
means of Kickelhayn's apparatus. Prior considers the mealy grains which are 
originally present better than the modified steely grains, and therefore he adds 
them to the percentage of steely grains modified. 

_ (Mx — M) 100 
A 100 — M M ' 

in which 

A = degree of dissolution. 

M = per cent of mealy kernels in original barley. 
Mi = per cent of mealy kernels in barley after steeping and drying. 

The coefficient of mealiness in steeped and unsteeped barley Avas 
calculated according to H. T. Brown's* formula: Mealy grains are 
given a value of 100, half mealy 50, and steely 1. The number of 
grains of each type multiplied by its special value and the sum 
divided by 100 will give the coefficient of mealiness. 

The 1,000 kernel weight is found by counting 500 kernels at ran- 
dom and weighing them on a technical balance. The average of four 
weighings Avas taken, unless the difference between the highest and 
lowest Aveight of 500 kernels exceeded 0.5 gram, Avhen five or six 
Aveighings Avere taken. 

DISCUSSION OF BESULTS. 

In discussing the results obtained attention will first be called to 
the composition of the ordinary 6-row barleys (Table I), the Man- 
churian and Oderbrucker, calculated to a Avater-free basis, and then 
to the change in composition Avhich barleys undergo on being con- 
verted into malts. Of the 84 samples of 6-roAv barleys, the average 

a Loc. cit. 



DISCUSSION OF RESULTS. 



35 



percentage of protein was 11.86, with a variation of from 10.13 to 
14.94 per cent; 52 of these samples contained over 11.5 per cent, while 
only 12 had less than 11 per cent of protein. The sample containing 
the lowest percentage (10.13) was from Wisconsin, whereas the sample 
with the highest percentage (14.94) was grown in Montana. The 
following is a comparative average of the nitrogen results obtained 
by the Bureau of Chemistry and by Wahl : 

Average percentage .results on the nitrogen content of three hinds of hurley 

and malt. 



Analyst. 



BARLEY. 

Bureau of Chemistry 
R. Wahl 

MALTS. 

Bureau of Chemistry 
R. Wahl ". 



Ordinary 
6-row." 



1.91 
1.93 



1.84 
1.90 



Western 
6-row. 



Two-row. 



1.69 
1.69 



1.58 
1.59 



1.70 
1.80 



1.62 
1.65 



PROTEIN CONTENT OF BARLEY. 



The following table shows the average amount of protein found 
in the barleys from several States, beginning with the lowest percent- 
age of protein : 

Percentage protein content of barleys arranged by States. 



State. 


Protein 
content. 


State. 1 Pr ° tein 
1 content. 

1 


State Protein 
btate - content. 


Illinois 


11.44 
11.51 
11.59 
11.64 
11.69 


Canada i 11.83 

Minnesota 11.90 

Indiana 1 11.94 

Colorado | 12.50 








South Dakota 


12.80 
13.44 
14.19 


Iowa 


Wisconsin 

Ohio 









It is thus seen that the North Central States or States of the 
upper Mississippi Valley produce barleys whose protein content is 
on an average less than 12 per cent. If it be assumed, as is done in 
Europe, that a low-nitrogen barley is best for brewing, then these 
States produce a better quality of barley for this purpose than those 
grown in Kansas, New York, or South Dakota. On the other hand, 
the latter States should produce a more nutritious and therefore 
a better feeding barley and one better suited for the production of 
denatured alcohol. Clifford Richardson, in 1886, found that the 
Dakota barley was the richest in protein. The average of his results 
on 60 samples of this cereal is 12.1 per cent, very little higher than 
the average of 11.86 per cent here reported. 



" U. S. Dept. Agr., Division of Chemistry, Bui. 9. 



36 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 

RELATION OF PROTEIN TO STARCH AND EXTRACT. 

It is generally assumed that a high protein grain means a low 
starch grain, and vice versa. This is true, as a rule, and especially 
so in the case of wheat. When barleys are considered, however, there 
are many exceptions, notably the barleys from Ohio. Minnesota. 
Iowa, and Illinois, which have a comparatively low protein content, 
and also a rather low starch figure, while those few samples from 
Kansas and Montana, which contain more than the average amount 
of protein, likewise show more than the average content of starch. 
The samples of Indiana, Canada, Michigan, and Wisconsin barleys 
have a somewhat low protein content, while those from New York, 
Colorado, and South Dakota have a high protein content. Both of 
these two groups follow the general expectation, for while the former 
is high in starch, the latter is low. Thus 33 out of 84 samples of 
barleys are exceptions to the rule that high protein means low starch, 
and vice versa. As has been noted, in the case of wheat, protein and 
starch are generally complementary. With barleys, however, the 
presence of hulls, varying in amount from 10.2 to 15.4 per cent, makes 
this point less decisive, though an average of barleys grown under 
similar conditions shows with a high protein content a lower starch 
figure. The results indicate that on the whole low-protein G-row 
barleys do contain more starch. Fifty-three samples, with an average 
of 12.2 per cent protein, contained on an average 70.6 per cent of 
extract, while 31 samples, with 11.1 per cent protein, contained 71.8 
per cent of extract. The averages from each individual State do not 
always show this fact, namely, that there is more extract in low- 
protein barleys, but if instead of averaging all the samples they be 
separated into high-protein and low-protein barleys, not taking into 
account those samples whose protein content is close to the average, 
then the figures will show that high-protein barleys are low in extract, 
and vice versa. Twenty-four barleys, with an average protein con- 
tent of 13 per cent (that is, all barleys over 12.25 per cent), compared 
with 23 barleys whose average protein content is 10.8 (all samples 
under 11.25), show 00.94 per cent extract in the former and 72 per 
cent in the latter. In order, therefore, to bring out the different 
relations it is often best to take the extreme cases and not regard 
those which are so near the average that they might be included in 
one class or the other, according to variations within the limits of 
error. If, however, only the samples from Michigan, Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, Iowa, and South Dakota (the States where this type of 
barley has been found especially well suited to the conditions and 
where it is therefore extensively grown) be arranged in groups ac- 



DISCUSSION OF RESULTS. 



37 



cording to their protein content," a very pronounced tendency in the 
direction of the theoretical reaction between protein and extract is 



seen. 



Barley* from States of the northern Mississippi Valley showing the relation 
between protein, extract content, and it-eight per 1.000 grains. 



Number 






Weight 


of sam- 


Protein. 


Extract. 


per 1,000 


ples. 


' 




grams. 




Per cent. 


Per cent. 


Grams. 


2 


10. 0-10. 5 


72.68 


28.01 


9 


10. 5-11. 


72.12 


27.-29 


19 


11.0-11.5 


71.63 


26.97 


13 


11. 5-12. 


71.15 


26.39 


9 


12.0-12.5 


70.70 


26.07 


9 


12. 5-13. 


70.19 


25.66 


4 


13. 0-13. 5 


70.16 


26.14 


- 4 


13. 5-14. 


70.71 


26.14 



Only the last group, containing from 13.5 to 14 per cent of protein, 
forms an exception to the general rule that the percentage of extract 
decreases with an increasing protein content. The table further indi- 
cates that there is a greater decrease in extract for barley, containing 
from 10 to 12 per cent of protein than in that containing from 12 to 
14 per cent. 

From these results it is very evident that high-protein barleys of 
the 6-row type give low extract yields, a fact which has been observed 
by many others, especially in regard to 2-row barleys. 

RELATION OF PROTEIN CONTENT TO WEIGHT PER 1,000 GRAINS. 

Neumann 6 showed that low-protein 2-row barleys were generally 
of higher weight and that they produced more extract. The results 
here shown indicate also that low-protein barleys of the 6-row type 
weigh somewhat, though very little, more per 1,000 grains, thus 
again corroborating Neumann's work. This is shown by the last 
column of the preceding table, which gives the average weight of 
1,000 grains within the different groups. While it would appear from 
the table as if the weight of 1,000 grains varies more or less irregu- 
larly, especially for barleys containing from 12 to 14 per cent of 
protein, there is an obvious tendency for the weight of 1,000 grains 
to decrease as the protein content of the barley increases from 10 to 12 
per cent, though there are many individual exceptions. 

If one considers those samples of approximately the same percentage 
of protein, it will be found that invariably the heavier contain the 

a Three samples have been left out which either contained more than 14 per 
cent of protein or had abnormally large berries, together with much protein, 
owing to special cultivation and breeding. 

MVochenschr. Bran., 1905, 22:98. 



38 



STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 



most extract, a fact already established by Neumann " and Kunz. 6 
This is well illustrated in the following table: 

Relation between weight and extract content for barleys of the same jirotem 

content. 



Protein. 


Number 

of 
samples. 


Weight 
per 1,000 
grains. 


Extract. 


Protein. 


Number 
of 

samples. 


Weight 
per 1,000 
grains. 


Extract. 


Per cent. 
10-10.8 


{ \ 
{ 1 
{ 1 
{ I 
{ I 
{ i 


Grams. 
28.0 
27.5 
27.8 
26.7 
28.0 
26.1 
27.7 
24.5 
27.8 
25.0 
27.3 
25.5 


Per cent. 
72. 6 
72.4 
72.5 
71.5 
72.4 
71.1 
71.9 
69.8 
71.8 
70.6 
72.1 
70.6 


Per cent. 
12.0-12.4.... 


/ 5 


Grams. 
27.5 
25.2 
26.9 
25.0 
27.8 
25.9 
26.8 
26.3 
28.2 
26.4 


Per cent. 

71.8 


10.8-11 


12.4-12.8 \i 4 

12.8-13.2 ■ / 


70.2 

70.9 


11-11.2 


69.5 
71.0 


11.2-11.6 

11. 6-11. S 

11.8-12.0 


13.2-13.8 

Over 13.9 


1 4 

{ i 
{ I 


69.8 
70.9 
69.1 
70.3 
66.0 



The figures show that a high-protein barley may give a high 
extract, provided the weight per 1,000 grains is large, and vice versa. 
The size of the grain affects, therefore, the quantity of extract, other 
factors being equal. This table also gives the relation between the 
protein and extract content, showing the natural tendency for high- 
protein barley to give less extract. There are, however, many indi- 
vidual exceptions to this rule, as was found by Prior c in his work 
on 2-row barley. 

RELATION OF THE PROTEIN CONTENT TO THE CHARACTER OF THE 

ENDOSPERM. 

Not only do the low-protein barleys weigh more per 1,000 grains 
and contain more extract, but they are much more mealy after steep- 
ing. For example, 31 samples of barley with an average protein con- 
tent of 11.1 per cent have a coefficient of mealiness of 84, while 53 sam- 
ples whose average protein content is 12.2 per cent have a coefficient 
of mealiness of only 80. This difference is accentuated if only those 
samples wdiich contain over 12.2 per cent of protein are compared to 
those containing less than 11.25 per cent. In this case the former 
have a coefficient of mealiness of only 77 as compared with 87 for 
the latter. 

Yet the actual number of flinty grains in the samples, before steep- 
ing, is about the same in each class, the high-protein samples contain- 
ing 16 mealy and 43 steely grains per 100 and the low-protein barleys 
containing 15 per cent mealy and 44 per cent steely. The behavior 

"Address at the meeting of Yersnciis- and Lehranstalt fur Branerei, October, 
1906. 

MYochenscnr. Brau., 1906, 23: 530. 
c Loc. cit. 



DISCUSSION OF RESULTS. 



39 



of these two classes of barley on steeping is, however, quite different. 
The steely and half-steely grains of the low-protein barleys are 
changed during this process to a greater degree than are those of high 
protein content. This fact is more definitely brought out by compar- 
ing the samples of high and low protein content after steeping. For 
example, 24 samples with more than 12.25 per cent of protein gave 
a coefficient of mealiness of 73.8, while 15 samples with less than 11 
per cent of protein gave a mealiness coefficient of 87.8. 

The same samples before steeping contained 17 per cent steely and 
40 per cent mealy, with a coefficient of mealiness of Q1.7 } and 14 per 
cent steely, and 42 per cent mealy, with 64.1 coefficient of mealiness, 
respectively. These results show that permanent steely grains are 
richer in protein, and if not carefully malted they furnish steely malt 
and sinkers." The high-protein barley underwent a 24 per cent modi- 
fication on steeping, wdiile the low protein barleys were modified to 
the extent of 35 per cent. The estimation of the coefficient of meali- 
ness is important only when made after steeping. As the high-protein 
barleys contain a larger percentage of steely grains and have a lower 
coefficient of mealiness than the low-protein barleys, it follows that 
steely grains contain less extract than do mealy ones. This is shown 
in the following table : 



Ordinary 6-row barleys compared as to the character of the endosperm. 

LESS THAN 75 PER CENT OF MEALY GRAINS AFTER STEEPING. 



State. 


Num- 
ber of 
sam- 
ples. 


Extract. 


Weight 

per 1,000 

grains. 


Degree 
of disso- 
lution. 


Coeffi- 
cient of 
meali- 
ness. 


Protein. 


Fat. 


Starch. 




3 

4 
1 
2 
1 
2 

11 
3 
1 

19 


Per cent. 
71.7 
69.2 
71.9 
70.1 
69.6 
71.6 
70.7 
68.8 
70.9 
71.3 


Grams. 
26.9 
24.0 
24.3 
24.9 
27.8 
26.5 
26.0 
23.8 
27.9 
27.2 


68.5 
71.5 
69.2 
51.3 
48.4 
61.0 
72.7 
67.9 
64.9 
74.3 


74.5 
75.5 
80.1 
64.7 
66.1 
75.0 
78.2 
76.6 
73.1 
78.0 


Per cent. 
12.0 
13.3 
12.1 
12.6 
12.5 
11.4 
12.2 
12.6 
14.3 
12.0 


Per cent. 
1.95 
1.72 
2.00 
2.05 
1.85 
1.97 
2.02 
2.20 
1.99 
2.03 


Per cent. 
59.2 




58.2 




62. 




57.1 


Kansas 


62.2 
59.1 




58.9 




60.1 




56.4 




5S.8 






Average 


(47) 


70.7 


26.6 


71.0 


76.5 


12.2 


2.00 


58.8 



MORE THAN 75 PER CENT OF MEALY GRAINS AFTER STEEPING. 



Colorado 


1 

1 
. 1 
5 
4 
9 

15 
1 


72.1 
69.5 
72.0 
70.7 
71.1 
69.2 
72.1 
71.1 


28.8 
24.1 
28.2 
24.7 
25.9 
26.7 
28.7 
26.2 


80.3 
95.2 
82.1 
103.6 
83.8 
89.1 
95.2 
89.1 


83.0 
92.0 
89.0 
91.3 
88.9 
89.0 
89.0 
88.0 


11.7 
12.4 
12.0 
11.4 
11.6 
12.1 
11.4 
11.9 


2.07 
1.76 
2.05 
2.00 
2.03 
2.03 
1.98 
1.92 


56.8 
62.4 


Illinois 


58.6 
59.0 


Michigan 

Minnesota 

Wisconsin 

Ohio 


60.6 
57. S 
59.8 
57.0 








(37) 


71.0 


27.1 


92.4 


86.5 


11.6 


1.99 


59.2 







a J. Brand, Zts. gesam. Bramv., 1906, 29 : 661. 



40 



STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 



The same relation of protein content to permanent and transitory 
steeliness is plainly shown by the following table, in which all sam- 
ples examined are arranged in groups according to their protein 
content : 

Effect of steeping on mealiness considered from the viewpoint of protein content. 









Coefficient of mealiness 


Number 
of sam- 
ples. 


Protein. 


Degree 
of dis- 
solution 




(Brown). 












(Prior). 


Before 


After 


Differ- 








steeping. 


steeping. 


ence. 




Per cent. 










2 


7. 0- 7. 5 


107.7 


31.00 


98.75 


67.75 


1 


8. 0- 8. 5 


100.9 


11.80 


99.50 


87.70 


5 


9. 0- 9. 5 


108.4 


36.65 


96.31 


59. 66 


6 


9. 5-10. 


92.8 


11.66 


94.26 


82.60 





10. 0-10. 5 


90.7 


22.47 


90.69 


68.22 


13 


10. 5-11. 


87.3 


31.61 


87.39 


55.78 


20 


11. 0-11. 5 


82.4 


33.55 


83.51 


49.96 


20 


11. 5-12. 


84.3 


34.26 


84.44 


50.18 


13 


12. 0-12. 5 


73. G 


34.35 


78.82 


44.47 


13 


12. 5-13. 


66.7 


31.15 


75. 12 


43.97 


6 


13. 0-13. 5 


60.6 


32.09 


70.71 


38.62 


7 


13. 5-14. 


67.9 


33.23 


74.47 


41.24 


1 


14. 0-14. 5 


64.9 


29.59 


73. 19 


43.60 


3 


14. 5-15. 


62.9 


47.12 


71.14 


24.02 


1 


15. 0-16. 


54.3 


44.85 


69.58 


24. 73 



The last column, which gives the difference between the coefficients 
of mealiness before and after steeping, indicates that as a general 
rule the more kernels are transformed into the mealy state by steeping, 
the less protein the barley contains. Both the degree of dissolution 
(Prior) and the coefficient of mealiness after steeping (Brown) in- 
crease with decreasing protein content ; that is, the lower the protein 
content of a barley the more mealy in general its structure. If the 
figures for degree of dissolution be compared with those indicating 
the coefficient of mealiness (after steeping) it is seen that they are 
nearly identical for such barleys as are ordinarily used for malting 
purposes — that is, those containing from 10 to 13 per cent of protein — 
whereas beyond these limits the degree of dissolution rises or falls 
more rapidly than the coefficient of mealiness. 

RELATION OF PROTEIN AND HULL CONTENT. 

Prior a has also indicated that no connection exists between the 
protein and the hull content of barley. This may be true of 2-row 
barley, but when the 84 samples of 6-row barleys are examined one 
easily sees that with an increase in protein content there is also a cor- 
responding increase in the percentage of hulls. Twenty-four samples 
of high-protein barleys (average, 13 per cent of protein) contain 
12.9 per cent of hulls and 11.8 per cent of bran, while 23 samples of 
low-protein barleys (average, 10.9 per cent of protein) 1 contain 12.4 
per cent of hulls and 11. G per cent of bran. 



"Through Pure Products, 1907, 3: 92. 



DISCUSSTON OF RESULTS. • 41 

This may be clue to the fact that the smaller grains contain rela- 
tively more protein than the larger ones, and of course the small 
grains contain relatively more hulls. Beaven showed that small 
berries gave less extract, because they had a relatively larger amount 
of hulls. * 

COMPARATIVE COMPOSITION OF LARGE AND SMALL GRAINS. 

One expects to find a rather close relation between the size of the 
grain and the amount of starch present. The difference, however, 
is really very slight, especially when the extreme cases are compared. 
For example, 20 samples the weight of which per 1,000 grains was 
over 28.5 grams have 58.6 per cent of starch, while 31 samples under 
27 grams per 1,000 grains contain 58.8 per cent of starch. Johann- 
sen's b results, showing that the big grains contain relatively less 
nitrogen than the small grains of the same variety, is also corrobo- 
rated. 

The percentage of embryo and bran in small and large grains 
varies little, but the results seem to show that small grains contain 
a lower percentage of endosperm than do the larger ones. Twenty 
samples with an average weight of 30.3 grams per 1,000 grains con- 
tain 72.5 per cent of endosperm, whereas 31 samples of smaller grains 
(average weight per 1,000 grains, 25.6 grams) contain 71 per cent. 
- There is also a relation between the size of the grain and the 
amount of hulls, the larger grains containing somewhat less hulls. 
This has also been found to be true by Wallerstein c and Beaven.'-' 

Large grains contain more extract, starch, and endosperm than do 
the small ones. In 20 samples of 6-row barley, with a 1,000-grain 
weight above 28.5 grams, the percentage of bran is 11.8; hulls, 
12.2; embryo, 2.5; endosperm, 72.5; extract, 71.7; starch, 58.6; and 
the weight per bushel is 49.5 pounds; while 31 samples of smaller 
grains of the same variety — that is, those weighing less than 27 grains 
per 1,000 grains — contain about 11.6 per cent of bran, 13 per 
cent of hulls, 2.53 per cent of embryo, 71 per cent of endosperm, 
70.7 per cent of extract, 58.9 per cent of starch, and have a bushel 
weight of 46.6 pounds. The larger grains contain also less fiber, 
pentosans, and ash, but have a higher coefficient of mealiness. There 
is no appreciable difference in the fat, sulphur, or lecithin content 
in large and small grains. The weight per 1.000 grains varied from 
19.9 to 33.5 grams. The weight per bushel varied from 42.5 to 51.5 
pounds. The light grains are less plump, contain more nitrogen, and 
produce less extract. On the other hand, extra heavy grains are 

a J. Fed. lust. Brew., 1902, 8: 542. 
6 Conipt. rend, travaux Carlsberg, 1S99, 4: 122. 

Communications from Laboratory and Scientific Station for Brewing, Sec. 
Ami. Rep., 1904. 
d Loc. cit. 



42 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 

richer in extract material, but, according to Prior, they malt less 
easily. The weight per bushel is not so important as is this weight 
taken in connection with the weight per 1,000 grains. 

As has already been stated, the weight per bushel varies from 42.5 
to 51.5 pounds, with an average of 46.7, the sample of lowest weight 
per bushel being from Montana and having also the lowest weight 
per 1,000 grains and a high percentage of nitrogen. This relation 
of high protein content to low bushel weight has been observed by 
many investigators, and almost invariably occurs when the sample 
has, for some reason, failed to develop normally and fully. It is a 
well-known physiological fact that the protein of cereals develops 
to a very large extent comparatively early in the life of the plant, 
whereas assimilation and the formation of carbohydrates may pro- 
ceed as long as the leaves or stem contain any green coloring matter. 
If for any cause the plant fails to develop a plump grain it will nat- 
urally show not a larger amount of nitrogen but a relatively higher 
percentage. The barleys from Ohio and Illinois, which contain the 
lowest percentage of nitrogen, are characterized by being the heaviest. 
The weight per 1,000 grains likewise shows a very wide variation, 
19.9 grams to 33.5 grams, with an average of 26.9 grains, the smaller 
grain showing a somewhat higher percentage of nitrogen. 

OTHER CONSTITUENTS OF BARLEY. 

The percentage of pentosans shows a variation from 8.31 per cent 
in Ohio-grown barley to 11.51 in the sample from South Dakota. 
These results indicate that a high content of hulls is accompanied 
by a high percentage of fiber and of pentosans, as would be expected, 
since grains with a high content of fiber generally yield the most 
pentosans, because of a rather close connection, not necessarily ge- 
netic, between fiber and pentosans.* 1 High-protein barleys contain the 
most pentosans, on an average. 

The percentage of fiber varies from 4.34 to 6.68, with an average 
of 5.76 for all samples. The average found by Clifford Richardson 
was only 4.08. These variations from one year to another are 
probably due to weather conditions. It may be interesting also to 
note that the sample grown in New York contained the least amount 
of hulls (only 10.17 per cent), while the one from Montana contained 
the largest amount (15.36 per cent). The high-protein barleys are 
somewhat richer in fiber than are the low-protein barleys, thus cor- 
roborating the researches of Bleisch and Eegensburger. 7 ' 

The percentage of fat in the barleys grown in the different States 
varied from 1.67 to 2.46, with an average of 2.02 per' cent for all 

Calabresi, Staz. sperim. agrar. ital., 190G, 39:09. 
6 Zts. gesam. Brauw., 1905, 28: 628. 



DISCUSSION OF RESULTS. 43 

samples. Richardson d states that the average of 10 samples was 2.87 
per cent, considerably higher than that found in any of the present 
samples. 

Konig 6 showed that the fat content of barley varied from 1.35 
per cent, obtained in barleys grown in Wiirttemberg, to 2.97, the latter 
representing the average of 16 Russian-grown barleys. There is no 
appreciable difference in fat content between high and low protein 
barleys. This corroborates Neumann's ° results on 2-row barley. 

The sugar results obtained in this investigation, though interesting, 
are unsatisfactory, owing to the fact that it was impossible to de- 
termine the sugar in the barleys until the samples were considerably 
over a year old. The barleys were harvested in the fall of 1904, and 
sent to the Bureau of Chemistry in the summer of 1905, soon after 
which most of the other determinations were made. In the fall and 
winter of 1905 the sugar determinations were begun. The results 
obtained were normal ; that is, the invert sugar content varied from 0.8 
per cent to 2.03 per cent, while the cane sugar varied from 1.02 per 
cent to 5.09 per cent. In February, 1906, while these results were being 
obtained, work had to be suspended temporarily and was not resumed 
until the following May, during which interim it was found that all 
of the invert sugar and most of the cane sugar had disappeared. 
This was true of both the ground and the unground barley. The 
cause of this phenomenon remains unknown, though it may be closely 
connected with the loss of diastase which takes place when seed has 
lost its germinating power.* 

The percentage of ash in these 84 samples of barley averages 2.9S 
and varies from 2.5 to 3.5 per cent, a rather large variation, the Ten- 
nessee, Ohio, Illinois, and New York barleys containing less than those 
from the other States. On the other hand, Montana and Kansas bar- 
leys are very high in ash. No relation exists between the ash content 
and the percentage of protein. Delbriick c found that high and low 
protein barleys gave practically the same percentage of ash, fat, and 
hulls. The average ash content found in 79 samples of American 
barley, as quoted by Konig, is 3.10 per cent, a figure quite close to 
that obtained on the samples reported here. 

The percentage of phosphoric acid varies from 0.8 to 1.25, increas- 
ing and decreasing as a rule with the amount of ash, in which the per- 
centage of phosphoric acid varies from 27.4 to 42.1, the largest amount 
being found in Ohio. When extreme cases are taken into considera- 
tion there seems to be also a rather close relation between the amounts 
of phosphoric acid, protein, and starch present ; the higher the per- 

a U. S. Dept. Agr., Division of Chemistry, Bui. 9. 

6 Untersuchuug landwirtschaftlich und gewerblich wichtiger Stoffe, i>. 486. 

C J. Inst. Brew., 1907, 13: 87. 

''Albo, through J. Inst. Brew., 1908, 14: 405. 

'Through Trans. Ainer. Brew. Inst., 1905, 3: 16. 



44 



STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 



centage of phosphoric acid the less protein and the more starch. This 
was true in over two-thirds of the samples examined. In this con- 
nection Richardson a found that phosphoric acid fertilizers increased 
the number of mealy grains, the effect being- just the opposite to that 
of nitrogen fertilizers, which increase the flinty characteristics. It 
may thus be quite possible to decrease the protein content of barley 
by the liberal use of phosphate fertilizers; in other words, since it is 
fairly definitely known that nitrate fertilizers increase the protein 
content of grains, phosphates may be used to increase the starch con- 
tent, thus producing a low protein barley. Kunz, 6 however, could 
find no relation between the amount of phosphoric acid and the ex- 
tract yield. 

The amount of sulphur varies in the 84 samples of barley from 
0.15 per cent to 0.256 per cent, with an average for all of the samples 
of 0.182 per cent, following the protein content closely. As sulphur 
is a natural constituent of protein, it might be expected that a high- 
protein barley would contain more sulphur than one with low pro- 
tein, and that this is the case was shown in over 80 per cent of the 
samples. 

RELATION OF TOTAL TO SOLUBLE PROTEIN. 

Regarding the soluble protein, the results indicate that the greater 
the total content of protein the smaller the percentage which is solu- 
ble; in other words, a larger proportion of the total protein is soluble 
in low-protein barleys than in high-protein barleys. The following 
table will show how general this relation is when the barleys are 
divided into groups according to their protein content : 

Relation between the total <ui<1 the soluble protein content of barley. 



a U. S. Dept. Agr., Division of Chemistry, Bui. 9. 
6 Wochenschr. Brau., 1906, 23: 530. 



State. 


Number 
of sam- 
ples. 


Protein content 
(below 11.49). 


Number 
of sam- 
ples. 


Protein content 
(11.50-11.99). 


Total. 


Proportion 
soluble. 


Total. 


Proportion 
soluble. 






Per cent. 


Per cent. 


3 

1 
1 


Per cent. 
11.8 


Per cent. 
16. 6 










11.9 19.0 




4 
1 


11.1 
11.4 


19.2 

18.4 


11.6 1 19.6 




1 




1 
2 
4 
1 
1 
5 


11.9 1 18.0 




3 

5 
1 


11.1 
10.9 

11.4 


18.0 
17.6 
19.2 


11.8 1 17.3 




11.9 ; 18.5 




•11.6 17.0 


Ohio 


11.7 t 19..4 




18 


11.0 17.6 


11.6 17.7 








32 


11.0 17.9 


9 


11.8 


17.9 











DISCUSSION OF EESULTS. 45 

Relation, between the total and the soluble protein content of barley — Cont'd. 



- 


Number 
of sam- 
ples. 


Protein content 
(12-12.49). 


Number 
of sam- 
ples. 


Protein content 
(over 12.50). 




Tr.+ Q i [Proportion 
lolal - : soluble. 


Total. 


Proportion 
soluble. 




Per cent. 1 Per cent. 


1 
1 
2 

i 


Per cent. 
14.2 
12.5 

13.7 


Per cent. 
17.1 




1 




15.7 




2. 
1 

1 


12.3 
12.1 
12.2 


17.8 
18.7 
17.3 


16. 3 




13. 1 18. 


Michigan 




l 

3 
1 

6 


13. 4 , 13. 1 


Minnesota 


8 


12.3 


18.6 


12.9 18.5 
14. 9 16. 8 


Wisconsin 


5 


12.2 , 16.7 


13.3 17.5 




17 


12.2 


17.0 


16 

: 


13. 4 | 17. 1 









In general, the 2-row barleys and the western barleys also show 
that a somewhat larger proportion of the protein is soluble in low 
than in high protein barleys (see p. 49). The same relation is true 
with respect to the malts also. 

In the following table the samples of the Manchurian-Oderbrucker 
type are arranged in groups according to protein content and the 
averages of soluble and of soluble-coagulable protein given for each 
group. There is a small but distinct decrease of the percentage of 
soluble protein with increasing total protein, but there are many 
individual exceptions to this rule, especially in the case of the maxi- 
mum and minimum figures obtained. 

Relation between the soluble, the sol uble-eoa git table, and the total protein of 
some Manchurian-Oderbrucker barleys. 



Total pro- 
tein in 
barley. 


Soluble protein (in terms of total 
protein). 


Soluble- 
coagulable 
protein (in 
terms of 
soluble 
protein) . 


Average. 


Maximum. 


Minimum. 


Per cent. 
10-11 
11-12 
12-13 
13-14 
14-15 


Per cent. 
16.8 
16.7 
16.5 
16.0 
15.4 


Per cent. 
17.8 
19.1 
19.6 
18.6 
15.7 


Per cent. 
15.4 
14.6 
14.0 

14.8 
15.1 


Per cent. 
27.9 
29.7 
28.7 
29.1 
31.7 



As has already been noted, the amount of soluble nitrogen de- 
creases with the increase of the total nitrogen; Wallerstein showed, 
however, that high protein and high soluble protein go together. 
This is not necessarily a contradiction, for in this study the per- 
centage of soluble nitrogen was compared with the total nitrogen, 
while Wallerstein has only compared the percentage of total soluble 
nitrogen of high and low protein barleys. 

Of the proteins in barley, therefore, from 81 to 85 per cent are in- 
soluble, Of the soluble protein, about 30 per cent are coagulable. On 



46 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 

the other hand, Evans finds that with 2-row barleys about 50 per 
cent of the soluble protein is coagulable, which is a much larger 
amount than that obtained in the work here reported on ordinary 
G-row barleys. 

LECITHIN IN ITS RELATION TO PROTEIN AND PHOSPHORIC ACID. 

The amount of lecithin, or rather of alcohol-and-ether soluble 
bodies, varies from 0.39 to 0.69 per cent, with an average of 0.53 per 
cent, in accordance with the protein content. Stoklasa h found that 
seed containing the most protein likewise held a higher percentage 
of lecithin. This is substantiated by these data with but few excep- 
tions; the amounts are, however, too small to make it possible to 
draw many conclusions. 

There is no apparent connection between the amount of phosphoric 
acid in barley and the lecithin content, probably due to the fact that 
barley, like wheat, contains a larger proportion of a water-soluble 
organic phosphorus compound, similar to, if not, phytin, and that 
the amount of phosphorus found in barley is more nearly related to 
this more abundantly occurring body than to lecithin, the latter 
phosphorus compound being present in only relatively small quan- 
tities. 

From the results given in Tables I and II it is seen that fully 35 
per cent of the ash is composed of phosphoric acid compounds of 
which less than 5 per cent is in the form of lecithin phosphoric 
acid. The bulk of the phosphorus is present in the barley as a 
calcium-magnesium-potassium salt of oxymethylene diphosphoric 
acid, as was shown by Hart and Andrews, who also showed that 
practically no inorganic phosphorus compounds existed in grains. 
The latter statement was afterwards corroborated by Schulze and 
Castoro, d and more recently Windisch and Vogelsang e established 
the same fact in regard to barley. There are several organic com- 
pounds of phosphorus existing in plants, chief among which, besides 
the previously mentioned compound, phytin, are the lecithin-like 
bodies, which have a glycerin radicle, and the nucleins, which are pro- 
tein compounds containing phosphorus. Phytin occurs in quite large- 
amounts, while the two latter compounds are present in smaller 
quantities. 

Calcium, magnesium, and potassium, the more important ash con- 
stituents besides phosphorus, form on an average about 2.7 per cent, 
7.3 per cent, and 23 per cent, respectively, of the total ash. There 
appears to be no appreciable difference in the amount, of these con- 
stituents in the ash of low-protein barleys and high-protein barleys. 

"J. Inst. Brew., 1906, 12: 2d'.). c Xew York Agr. Exp. Sta., Bui. 238. 

6 Ber. (lent. chem. Ges., 1S96, ' ? Zts. physiol. Chein., 1904, 41: 477. 

29: 2761. ° Wochenschr. Bran., 1!)06, 23: 516. 



SUMMARY OF RESULTS. 47 

COEFFICIENT OF MEALINESS. 

There is also a very noticeable difference in the degree of disso- 
lution and in the coefficient of mealiness in these samples of barley. 
The former varies from 37 to over 117, while the latter shows a varia- 
tion of from 55 to 98. Prior's method of determining the degree of 
dissolution very often gives values over 100. The coefficient of meali- 
ness as determined by Brown gives somewhat lower results on low- 
protein barleys and higher results on high-protein barleys than 
Prior's degree of dissolution. The two methods are fairly indicative 
of the quality of barley. If the samples be arranged according to the 
percentage of mealy grains found after steeping, separating them 
into two classes, those with more than 75 per cent of mealy grains 
and those with less, it is seen (p. 39) that the lower protein con- 
tent and the higher number of mealy grains go together. There is 
no difference in the fat content, but there is somewhat more starch in 
those samples containing the high percentage of mealy grains. The 
weight per 1,000 grains and the amount of extract are also greater 
in high than in low percentage mealy grains. 

SUMMARY OF RESULTS. 

ORDINARY SIX-ROW BARLEYS. 

High-protein 6-row barleys contain a larger percentage of fiber, 
pentosans, hulls, bran, and embryo, but a smaller percentage of starch, 
extract, and soluble protein. The percentage of soluble protein 
that is coagulable is somewhat greater in high-protein than in low- 
protein barleys, but in the case of 2-row and Bay Brewing barleys 
there is no appreciable difference in this respect. The high-protein 
barleys weigh less per 1,000 grains and per bushel, besides having a 
lower degree of dissolution and coefficient of mealiness. This applies 
to all varieties of barley analyzed. No appreciable difference can be 
noted between high and low protein barleys in their content of fat, 
ash, sulphur, and lecithin, as is shown in the following tables, which 
also show no difference in the percentage of steely grains before 
steeping between barleys of more than and less than 11.5 per cent 
protein, when these are averaged. However, if the extreme cases — 
that is, those samples containing more than 12.25 per cent protein- 
are compared with barleys of less than 11 per cent protein, we find 
that the former contain 10 per cent steely and 63 per cent mealy 
grains after steeping, while the latter have only 4 per cent steely and 
77 per cent mealy, thus clearly showing that the barleys with over 
12 per cent protein are not so easily altered by the process of steep- 
ing as are low-protein barleys. 
72240— Bull. 124—09 i 



48 



STUDIES OF AMERICAN BABLEYS AND MALTS. 



O 



c a 



[OS.i,iU-w 
in inajo.id 
■riv.ob -|og 



•niajo.id 
aiqnios 



•Xiea^s 



•XIB9H 



■ssaiu 
-icam jojuaioijjaoo 

■uoii 
-ujossip jo aajSaci 



■J8JH 

-opaq jad ii[2iaA\. 



•jOBjpca 



•surea§ 
000'T -lad ;i[SiaAV 



imadsopua 



•oXiqui^j 



•sunn 



•inq^ioaq 



•prxo tunissBjoj 



^_- — — C ^ ^1 TT K EC CM CO LO i-O 03 

H oi co cm cm cm co cm cm co *ch oi cm *-* 

^^^ , ,_ 

.eo^weouscooooHi-tu: cc >c 
<- y: -r — ' co r^ o cd oi oohw gi 

• CN CN CO CO CN CO C) CI CO CO CO CO <N 

^ 

3 & sp t -^ -r r-^ o l: r io io »o o io 

^ "^^^ 

. c- t oi c a; t-~ os i- to co r- -d © 

■£ to CO t— r-COCCiC'^COiOCNCO'^t* 

&h" 

-£ ,-( <M CM r-Hr-i^H^HlM-H 

_ftj 

i— ,— < o t- i io cn to cb co'r-i ot^o 

t-h-GOCOCOcOCOOOI-r^aOQOCO 

«OCN'-HCNOS' , tf , CO©COOSCO'— < »-h 
. . CN 

00 co .OCT. X' i ~ l - CO ■* O O Oi 

C t- 00 © N ^ OO N C O CO GO CC 

^(OH^COCQNOOOCOCC x — x 

■<s. CO iO CO CO CD iO — CO u~ CO CO CO CD 

_N 

. CO CN 

^aowccwooinM-^oscoNCNi 
J? cc n* od ^ to r^ -^ co rl 1-^ os i^ co 

Oc^C-ICNCNCNClOlCNCNCNCNCNCN 

. -^ 'r-t iO W~©~CC MOON OHCN 

^C0HCOdrHNCNiNO5-*H(Nr4 

•E>t^t^-t^t-t^-t^-t^cOI>-I^-t^t-- 

_»H 

. tO CD CO -^J* l>- ^T 1>- iO CO l>- CO CD' CO 

"£ cm" cm cn cn cm <N" cn cn cn cn cn cn cn 

_^ 

.LOOlOCOCOCCI>-0"iCO''3 1 ^iO ,, f 



>COcO'<J«iOCOCOiOcOiOCNCOCO© 

■^cocqi^cococooicoocac-iTr 



■ IO iO ^ O iO iC "-O IO N LQ IO io^J" 



. co r- cn ^ co rH ih (n n ci r. ci 

;N CD t~N<DNNNI>NcON 



pixo uinisau2i3jy; 



■pTXO TUniOIBQ 



■piOE ouoqdsoqd 



'.inqdins 



•qsy 



■i[Djb;s 



• aHHCHQCr-C ~ — - ~ 

- r-i 01 Ol CO CI CI CI CI CI —i CO CM 



er. c-N co r-- i ■- co © © i - '-A 

OOOOOOOOOrHOO 



. © © CO X S- SI r 



. N O H 03 N 



OOHOiOiOCOHO^OH 



. co ci o r- t^ oo HOCHOicooj 

^CB00«D00C005NC0OWi0NN 
Cj ,_h ,_, ,_ IHHHHHfMOlHr- l ,-H 



fii° 



. CO iC' tO Oi CO N N CO LO LO O iC CO' 



. CI CI 1^ 1^ N O CI N O 00 t^ N -h 

>ClCi0^02C}'*'^^CONNC 

• ©* OS CO — ^ t^ cn tO CO OO CD* i© GO t> 
Q,^ iO IO IC CO iC CD *D »-~ i.O iO iO iO iO 



. e t h c i* c -- i* l-: oo co co r-« 



J CD t- CO 

• Oi O Oi Oi O 



NONOJOJOCOCO 
oi Oi Oi oi O Oi CO 



•aaqij 



'18,1 



•sajd 
-ures jo jaqumjx[ 



: o x u- -^ ^ ^ o — - o ^ to i ^ 






• ib co to o c ' ~ r; — u- oi r- oi c*i 



l^-*^H^H^l<C<lrf^HCC^ 



^0 
IS" 
9 3 
O03 



■ S o 5 o °'55 
"3 3 •* 03 .— .3 O ct 'o r* Xi 



CN CO«-i^r Oi 1 


rH 


i-4t-HiHtHO 






^ 


t^cO (^-r-< CN 


■^ 




00 


Oi CM (M <N CN 


(N 


irsOC^OO t- 


C5 


© r-- w co co 


CO 










coco -^ IO co 


■fl> 


~H^lO/jI- 








TpMl-rHf 


00 


rHCONNlC 

Oi 00 t- t- GO 


CO 
00 


Oi CO CO t-- © 


1> 




•* 


© t- GO CO K 


00 






CO Ol TP CO CO 


CM 






© CO CD "D "D 


CO 


©CN COCO CO 


c/j 






t- 1> l>. t> l> 


*~ 


C-3 CO ■* "^ Ol 


O 




r^ 


CN CN CM Ol CI 




t^oicoooco 


■* 




Ol 


NNNNN 


t^ 


[- t^ ifl N >0 


iO 


CNCNCN CNCN 


<M 


GO iO© »- »0 


CO 








7-1 


00©t-CN CO 


CO 


CM CI fN ^-" CI 


CN 




^ 




CM 


-rj< LO 'O CD iO 






O 


© CO CO b- t^ 






CM 


(N CN CN CN CM 






00 


© r-H © © © 






CO 


©©© i-H © 


o 




rH 


O-CO h-©GO 


r^ 










©Oi Oi CO© 


OS 


CO CNCN COCO 


IN 


i-l ©Oi iT Oi 


CO 


Oi OS CO CM Ol 


OC 


IO »0 *0 CD to 


m 






IO tO t^- GO ^t 1 


'O 


© OlOICO © 


CT> 


T-H 






CD 


OS to. 00 ^ CO 


CO 


»o »o to tO to 


IO 




o 


00©©--h © 




i-l CNCN CNCN 


CN 






CO to © ^CO 


rH 




CO 












CD 




















: o3 








"£P® 03 § 






^ 


1 


2«1 


fe 
F 





SUMMARY OF RESULTS. 



49 



The following table likewise shows the difference in coefficient of 
mealiness, degree of dissolution, percentage of extract, etc., between 
high and low protein barleys : 

Comparison of high and low protein barleys. 
TWO-ROW. 



State. 


Num- 
ber of 
sam- 
ples. 


Degree 

of 
disso- 
lution. 


Coeffi- 
cient of 
meali- 
ness. . 


Pro- 
tein. 


Weight 
per 

thou- 
sand. 


Weight 

per 
bushel. 


Ex- 
tract. 


Solu- 
ble 
pro- 
tein. 


Coagu- 

lable 
pro- 
tein in 
water- 
soluble 


OVER 11.5 PER CENT OF 
PROTEIN. 


1 
5 
1 

, 1 
1 


62.0 

48.7 
77.8 
50.0 
77.1 


77.6 
54.3 
83.5 
68.1 
79.1 


Per 
cent. 
12.9 
13.2 
12.6 
11.6 
17.4 


Grams. 
32.6 
41.6 
31.3 
28.3 
34.7 


Pounds. 
52.7 
51.0 
50.2 
48.5 
47.2 


Per 
cent. 
74.0 
71.4 
72.7 
69.4 
69.4 


Per 
cent. 
14.3 

15.8 
16.5 

17.7 
15.4 


Per 
cent. 
32.4 




32.8 




31.8 




21.8 




34.9 


Average 


9 


56.7 


64.4 


13.4 


37.2 


50.4 


71.4 


16.0 


31.6 


UNDER 11.5 PER CENT OF 
PROTEIN. 


1 
1 

1 
1 
5 


116.9 
100. 8 
77.2 
85.0 
116.4 


97.5 
98.0 
87.0 
91.0 
97.6 


9.3 
9.5 
10.8 
11.0 
10.0 


38.0 
47.6 
38.1 
37.5 
38.9 


49.5 
55.7 
50.5 
52.5 
55.0 


73.9 
79.1 
74.2 
73.7 
76.4 


15.8 
15.2 
18.4 
15.4 
19.0 


28.8 




30.3 




31.3 




31.8 




32.3 








9 


95.7 


95.7 


10.1 


39.5 


53.7 


75.9 

i 


17.6 


31.5 









BAY BREWING BARLEY (6-ROW). 








OVER 11.5 PER CENT OF 
PROTEIN. 


2 
1 
1 
2 


39.4 
54.3 
79.6 
55.4 


61.0 
69.6 
81.1 
66.2 


13.2 
15.8 
13.6 
12.2 


32.0 
28.0 
29.7 
28.5 


40.3 
39.2 
40.0 

45.7 


68.3 
62.9 
68.4 
71.4 


13.5 
20.3 
14.9 

15.5 


25.4" 




33.7 




25.8 




31.3 






Average 


6 


53.9 


67.5 


13.4 


29.8 


41.9 


68.5 


15.5 


28.8 


UNDER 11.5 PER CENT OF 
PROTEIN. 


6 
3 

3 


100.7 
96.2 
97.6 


96.2 
96.8 
97.5 


9.1 
10.1 
10.0 


36.4 
40.0 
40.8 


46.5 
46.7 

47.2 


71.8 
72.2 
72.3 


15.4 
16.3 

16.2 


27.7 


Idaho 

Washington 


29.9 
29.4 


Average 


12 


98.8 


96.6 


9.5 


38.4 


46.7 


72.0 


15.8 


28.7 



The great variations in the composition of these 84 samples of 
6-row barleys, which belong practically to the same variety — that is, 
Manchurian — and which have been grown in widely separated locali- 
ties differing from one another in soil and general climatic conditions, 
again demonstrate how great is the influence of environment on the 
composition of plants. There is a greater difference in the compo- 
sition and in the physical characteristics of the barleys of the same 
type grown in different localities than there is between different 
varieties grown in the same environment. This is well illustrated in 
Tables I and II, which give the average composition of the four 
varieties of barley. There seems to be a greater influence exerted by 
climate than by seed, variety, or difference in soil characteristics. Ac- 



50 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 

cording to K6nig, a a barley grown in a sandy soil, a clay soil, and a 
soil rich in lime differed in protein content as follows: 11.1, 13.4, 12.7. 
Much larger differences than these are obtained by growing the 
same varieties in different localities. Eckenbrecher b likewise has 
recently shown that there is a greater difference in composition and 
physical characteristics of barley of the same type grown in different 
localities than of different varieties grown in the same locality. The 
same has been shown by Kiessling c and others. 

TWO-ROW BARLEYS. 

No attempt will be made to draw conclusions of this character 
from the data here presented on 2-row, Utah Winter, or Bay 
Brewing barleys, because of the fact that comparatively few samples 
of each variety Avere analyzed. In general, however (Table II), it 
is readily seen that the percentage of protein is very slightly lower 
in the 2-row barleys than in the 6-row barleys (Table I) of the Man- 
churian type, the average in the former case being about 11.6 per 
cent. The five samples from Montana average less than 10 per cent. 
Although the 2-row barleys do not contain much less protein than do 
the 6-row, there appears to be somewhat less fiber, pentosans, ash, 
sulphur, hulls, embryo, and steely grains, but more starch, extract, 
soluble albumen, bran, and endosperm, a higher coefficient of meali- 
ness and degree of dissolution, and a greater weight per 1,000 grains 
and per bushel in the 2-row than in the 6-row barleys. The other 
constituents show no great variation between the two types of 
barley. A striking difference between 2-row and 6-row barleys 
is found in the fact that the former contain a larger proportion of 
bran than of hulls, while in the latter the percentage of hulls is 
greater than the percentage of bran. The western 6-row barleys are 
in this respect similar to the ordinary 6-row barleys. 

SIX-ROAV WESTERN BARLEYS. 

Twenty-seven samples of 6-row western barleys were analyzed. 
They are usually called Bay Brewing barley or Utah Winter, the 
former being characterized by their thick skin and the latter by 
their somewhat thinner hulls. Both varieties are large. Compared 
with the ordinary 6-row barleys, they show a closer resemblance to 
them in chemical composition than do the 2-row barleys. They are, 
however, much larger, weigh more per bushel, and contain less 
protein (somewhat less than the 2-row barleys). They contain a 
slightly larger percentage of hulls, but less total sulphur and soluble 
protein than do other 6-row barleys. The average weight per 1,000 
grains of 6-row barley is less than 27 grams, compared with 36 grams 



to 



a TJntersuchung landwirtschaftlich gewerblich wicMiger Stoffe, p. 517. 
& Wochenschr. Brau., 1907, 24: 491. 
c Loc. cit. 



SUMMARY OP RESULTS. 



51 



as the weight per 1,000 grains of western barleys. There is a very 
close agreement between the two varieties in the content of ash, fat, 
fiber, bran, pentosans, starch, and ash constituents. 



COMPARISON OF MALTS. 

Thirty malts were prepared from the ordinary G-row barleys, 8 
from the western barleys (Bay Brewing and Utah Winter), and 5 
from 2-row barleys. 

In comparing the composition of malts made from these three 
different varieties of barley, Table III shows that 6-row malts con- 
tain a larger percentage of the following constituents : Sulphur, 
lecithin, total protein, soluble protein, soluble noncoagulable protein, 
and embryo; a smaller percentage of starch, of extract in fine and 
coarse grist, and of . bran; a smaller weight per bushel and per 1,000 
grains, and a smaller coefficient of mealiness. Two-row malts, on 
the other hand, are higher in endosperm, weight per bushel, ex- 
tract in fine and coarse grist, and coefficient of mealiness, and lower 
in fiber, pentosans, hulls, and embryo. The large western malts— the 
Bay Brewing and Utah Winter — are higher in hulls and lower in 
sulphur, protein, soluble protein, and soluble noncoagulable and 
coagulable protein. There is very little difference between the 
varieties in the percentage of ash, phosphoric acid, and fat. The 
western malts resemble those of the ordinary 6-row barleys in the 
amount of fiber, pentosans, hulls, bran, embryo, endosperm, and 
starch which they contain. They are somewhat like the 2-row malts 
in weight per bushel, weight per 1,000 grains, and in the per cent 
of total protein. 

The following table shows how high and low protein malts compare 
in weight per 1,000 grains, percent of extract in fine grist, weight per 
hectoliter, per cent soluble protein and per cent coagulable protein, 
the per cent mealiness, and coefficient of mealiness. On an average, 
the high-protein malts are much less mealy in the case of all three 
classes of malt. The coefficient of mealiness is also less, as are also 
the weight per 1,000 grains, the per cent of extract, and the per cent 
of soluble protein. 

Comparison of high and Joiv protein malts. 



State. 



OVER 11.5 PER CENT OP PRO- 
TEIN (6-ROW). 

South Dakota 

Illinois 

Iowa 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Ohio 

Wisconsin 

Colorado 



Num- 
ber of 
sam- 
ples. 



Average . 



Pro- 
tein. 



Per ct. 
13.3 
12.1 
13.0 
12.6 
12.3 
11.5 
12.5 
11.6 

12.5 



Mealy. 



Per ct. 
71 
95 
76 
76 
76 
78 
80 
60 

80 



Slight 
of per 

ness. | g rain s- 



80.0 
97.0 
79.7 
85.1 
84.4 
84.6 
90.4 
76.1 

86.6 



Grams. 
21.0 
24.9 
22.7 
21.4 
24.5 
23.3 
24 7 
28.3 

24.0 



Ex- 
tract 
of fine 
grist. 



Per ct. 
71.7 
72.6 
72.1 
71.5 
73.5 
72.9 
73.4 
73.2 

73.1 



Weight 

per 
hecto- 
liter. 



Kilos. 
46.7 
45.4 

45.8 
48.0 
48.2 



44.3 
51.3 



47.0 



Soluble 

pro- 
tein in 
total 
protein 



Per ct. 
38.0 
36.8 
37.6 
33.4 
36.7 
41.3 
35.3 
29.4 

36.4 



Coagu- 
lable 
pro- 
tein. 



Per ct. 
3.7 
4.8 
3.2 
3.5 
4.0 
3.4 
3.4 



3.8 



52 



STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 



Comparison of high and low protein malts — Continued. 



State. 


Num- 
ber of 
sam- 
ples. 


Pro- 
tein. 


Mealy. 


Coeffi- 
cient 
of 

meali- 
ness. 

95.0 
86.0 
96.4 


Weight 
per 
1,000 

grains. 


Ex- 
tract 
of fine 
grist. 


Weight 

per 
hecto- 
liter. 


Soluble 

pro- 
tein in 
total 
protein. 


Coagu- 
lable 
pro- 
tein. 


UNDER 11.5 PER CENT OF PRO- 
TEIN (6-ROW). 

Michigan 


2 
4 
7 


Per ct. 
11.2 
11.1 
11.3 


Per ct. 
91 

78 
94 


Grams. 
25.9 

23.7 
25. 


Per ct. 
75.7 
72.0 
73.9 


Kilos. Per it. , Per H. 


Minnesota 


47.0 
46.7 


37.6 
37.8 




Wisconsin , 


4.6 




Average 


13 


11.2 


89 


93.0 


24.7 


73.6 


47.1 


37.6 


4.7 




OVER 11.5 PER CENT OP PRO- 
TEIN (2-ROW). 

New York 


1 


13.8 


60 


73.6 


22.7 


72.9 


48.7 


35.6 


4.5 




UNDER 11. 5 PER CENT OF PRO- 
TEIN (2-ROW). 

Montana 


4 


9.6 


96 


97.7 


33.5 


78.7 


53.1 


38.0 


4.3 




OVER 11.5 PER CENT OF PRO- 
TEIN (BAY BREWING AND 
UTAH WINTER) . 

Washington 


1 


12.3 


68 


81.6 


35.1 


71.8 


50.0 


32.2 


3.6 




UNDER 11.5 PER CENT OF PRO- 
TEIN (BAY BREWING AND 
UTAH WINTER). 

California 


2 
2 
1 
1 
1 


8.2 
10.1 
10.9 
8.3 
9.5 


90 
91 
65 
93 
86 


93.0 

95.0 
77.6 
97.5 
91.5 


34.0 

32.9 
32.8 
34.5 
32.3 


72.0 
72.6 
73.9 
77.2 
75.3 


45.4 
46.3 

48.7 
48.7 
45.4 


38.3 
32.3 
32.3 
35.6 
36.3 


3.6 
3.3 
4.0 
3.5 
3.9 


Idaho 


Utah 


Washington 


Montana 




Average 


7 


9.3 


87 


91.8 


33.4 


73.6 


46.6 


35.1 


3.5 





The hulls of 6-row malt form a much larger percentage of the grain 
than do the hulls of 2-row malts, and yet the protein content of the 
6-row barley is 1.5 per cent higher than that of the 2-row variety. 
These two factors only emphasize how much smaller the percentage 
of carbohydrates must be in G-row than in 2-row barley malts. 

Malts are sometimes rejected by brewers because of a high bushel 
weight. The following table will show that this factor is absolutely 
useless when considered alone, for very often those malts having a 
high bushel weight will give a larger yield of extract in the coarse 
grist than malts of lower weight per bushel. 

Comparison of weight per bushel and yield of extract. 



Kind of malt. 



2-row malt 

6-row Bay Brewing malt 
6-row Manchurian malt. . 



Number 

of 
samples. 



High 
weight 

per 
bushel. 



Pounds. 
41.25 
38.25 
37.7 



Extract. 



Per cent. 
76.7 
70.1 
70.5 



Number 

of 
samples. 



Low 
weight 

per 
bushel. 



Pounds. 
36.5 
35.6 
35.6 



Extract. 



Per cent. 
70.6 
69.9 
69.9 



As Wallerstein has shown, a high bushel weight of malt is no 
more an indication of inferiority than is the low weight per bushel a 

"Communications from Laboratory and Scientific Station for Brewing, Sec. 
Ann. Rep., 1904. 



SUMMARY OP RESULTS. 



53 



proof of its superiority. This clearly shows that one factor alone, and 
especially the bushel weight, is not enough to determine the value of a 
malt. Again, many times, even when this factor is considered in 
connection with the weight per 1,000 grains, there are not sufficient 
data at hand to warrant a rejection of the malt, for the following 
table will illustrate how it is possible to have malts whose bushel 
weights are high, but whose weights per 1,000 grains are low, and yet 
the extract yield is higher than the average. On the other hand, 
some malts with a high weight per 1,000 grains and a high bushel 
weight give a yield of extract lower than the average. The average 
weight per 1,000 grains of malts of high bushel weight and of high 
yield of extract is very little higher than in the case of low bushel 
weight. 

Comparison of 6-row malts having a high and a low weight per bushel. 



High 


weight per bushel. 


Low weight per bushel. 


Weight per 


Weight per 


Extract. 


Weight per 


Weight per 


Extract. 


bushel. 


1,000 grains. 


bushel. 


1,000 grains. 


Pounds. 


Grams. 


Per cent. 


Pounds. 


Orams. 


Per cent. 


38.75 


25.9 


74.1 


36.25 


21.0 


68.8 


36.75 


26.0 


70.8 


35.25 


24.9 


71.5 


37.25 


21.4 


68.5 


35.50 


22.7 


67.5 


36.50 


24:7 


63.6 


34.25 


22.1 


69.8 


38.50 


24.8 


71.6 


36.00 


25.3 


68.2 


40.50 


24.6 


70.0 


35.75 


24.6 


70.7 


37.50 


23.0 


69.3 


36.00 


24.3 


71.8 


37.50 


23.3 


71.0 


35.75 


25.1 


73.0 


38.00 


25.0 


70.8 


36.00 


25.0 


69.1 


37.00 


25.1 


71.9 


35.25 


25.5 


70.6 


37.00 


25.0 


72.5 


36.25 


24.0 


66.0 


37.75 


24.8 


70.0 


34.75 


22.7 


71.9 


36.50 


25.4 


68.3 








38.00 


27.3 


70.9 








37.50 


23.4 


70.8 








37.7 


24.6 


70.5 


35.6 


23.9 


69.9 



As a general rule, however, a malt with a high weight per bushel 
will give more' extract and will weigh more per 1,000 grains than a 
malt with low weight per bushel. The following figures selected 
from the preceding table plainly show this: 

A comparison of the extremes of weight per bushel with yield of extract. 



Over 37.7 pounds per 
bushel. 


Less than 35.6 pounds 
per bushel. 


Weight per 
1,000 grains. 


Extract. 


Weight per 
1,000 grains. 


Extract. 


Orams. 
25.9 
24.8 
24.6 
25.0 
24.8 
27.3 


Per cent. 
74.1 
71.6 
70.0 
70.8 
70.0 
70.9 


Orams. 
24.9 
22.7 
22.1 
25^5 
22.7 


Per cent. 
71.5 
67.5 
69.8 
70.6 
71.9 


25.4 


71.2 


23.5 


70.2 



54 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BABLEYS AND MALTS. 

But it is not always enough to know the weight per bushel and the 
weight per 1,000 grains in order to properly select malt. One should 
also determine other factors, such as mellowness, percentage of ger- 
mination, water, protein, and extract, the color, odor, impurity, and 
the diastatic power, etc., basing- the decision on all of these results. 

From the entire study it is very evident that the variation in cli- 
matic conditions throughout the country, the difference in soil, the 
different methods of cultivation and rotation practiced — all have 
their bearing- on the characteristics of barley, and from the great 
variation in composition it is safe to assume that the United States 
can produce barley of the first rank, whether 6-row or 2-row varieties 
be grown. As the climate varies greatly from one locality to another, 
and such conditions exert the greatest influence on the qualit}^ of the 
crop, care should be taken to select the seed and locality according to 
the type of barley desired. For example, moist climates and localities 
where plants have long periods of growth, especially between the 
stage of flowering and maturity, generally produce a low-protein 
barley. In such localities it would generally be impossible to grow 
barleys rich in protein. 

CHANGES IN COMPOSITION DURING MALTING. 

One of the most interesting and instructive series of results ob- 
tained in this work relates to the changes which each constituent of 
the barleys underwent during malting. This is shown in Table IV. 
These figures were obtained by analyzing the malts, and then calcu- 
lating the malt analyses to the basis of the corresponding barleys by 
multiplying the results of the malt analyses by the factor obtained 
by dividing the weight of 1,000 grains of malt by that of 1,000 grains 
of barley. This factor averages about 80, but as a rule the fac- 
tor found by actually weighing the barley and the amount of malt 
obtained therefrom on a laboratory scale was used. In several cases, 
however, the factor 89 was used in the conversion of the malt figures 
to the basis of the barley. This was the case wherever the results 
showed that an apparent error had been made, or where a sample 
of either the malt or barley had been lost before the weight per 1,000 
grains was obtained. The loss in malting a barley is due to the loss 
of soluble constituents and respiration of carbonic acid and to the 
formation of the radicles. On the other hand, there is a slight gain 
in weight due to the fixation of water during the conversion of starch 
to sugar, and possibly also to the hydrolysis of the proteins." The 
losses on malting were then calculated by dividing the difference be- 
tween the percentage of each constituent in the barley and in the 
malt (calculated to the barley basis) by the percentage of that con- 
stituent in the barley itself. 



a Long, J. Anier. Cliem. Soc, 1907, 21): 295. 



SUMMARY OF RESULTS. 



55 



In this way the following changes due to malting were estimated, 
the figures given being the average of the results obtained from the 
analyses of 43 samples of barley and of their corresponding malts : 

Loss and </<iin in the various constituents of barley due to malting. 



Constituent. 



Gain or 

loss. 



Per cent. 

Eat I - 7.7 

Fiber ' - 8.4 

Pentosans — 1.6 

Starch - 28. 

Reducing sugars as invert sugar + 400. 



Constituent. 



Cane sugar. 

Ash 

Potassium oxid 

Calcium oxid 

Magnesium oxid 

Total phosphoric acid . 



+ 71.0 

- 20.7 

- 48.0 

- 22.0 

- 17.0 

- 12.7 



Sulphur 

Lecithins 

Hulls 

Bran 

Embryo 

Endosperm 

Total protein 

Soluble protein 

Soluble-noncoagulable protein 
Soluble-coagulable protein 



Cain or 
loss. 



Per cent. 
+ 9.0 
4- 34.3 

- 8.5 

- 37.0 
+ 78.7 

- 10.2 

- 12.0 
+ 72.5 
+ 104.0 
+ 13.0 



Although it should not be assumed that these results represent exact 
amounts, yet they indicate fairly well the changes going on during 
malting. From these averages it is seen that when barleys are malted 
they lose appreciably in fat, lime, magnesia, phosphoric acid, hulls, 
protein, fiber, and endosperm. There is a greater loss, however, in 
starch, ash, bran, and potash. No appreciable loss is noted in pento- 
sans, while on the other hand there is a considerable gain in the amount 
of lecithin and soluble coagulable protein, and a very large increase in 
sugars, embryo, soluble protein, and soluble noncoagulable protein. 

The loss of the different constituents is, of course, due to the growth 
of the acrospire and rootlets or malt sprouts, to the amount of respir- 
atory products produced during this growth, and to the various 
physiological changes; for example, the conversion of starch into 
maltose, etc. Thus, much of the starch (over 20 per cent) has been 
lost during malting, but most of this loss is made up by the corre- 
sponding gain in sugars. A part of the sugars produced from this 
starch and some of the fat were given off as carbon dioxid produced 
by respiration during the malting. Another part of the starch con- 
version products was transferred to the malt sprouts, the insoluble 
and therefore the immovable starch having first been converted by 
the diastase into soluble and transferable sugars, which then migrated 
to the sprouts. These sprouts are likewise rich in phosphoric acid 
and other salts containing over 1.5 per cent of phosphoric acid alone, 
besides over 3 per cent of potash and an appreciable amount of 
lime and magnesia. This partly accounts for the large loss of ash, 
phosphoric acid, and other constituents, and also of the bran of 
barley during malting. As one can readily see, the loss of phosphoric 
acid, of ash, and of bran are closely related, being, respectively, 12.7 
per cent, 20.7 per cent, and 37 per cent. The ash not only lost phos- 
phoric acid but also some of all of the other constituents, namely, 



56 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BABLEYS AND MALTS. 

48 per cent of potash, 22 per cent of lime, and 17 per cent of magnesia. 
This explains why the loss of ash is greater than that of phosphoric 
acid. According to Konig," barley bran contains about 7 per cent 
of ash, of which 50 per cent is phosphoric acid. That fact explains 
why such a loss in bran takes place during the process of malting 
barley. A large portion of the ash lost, consisting of phosphoric 
acid and other salts, would naturally come from the bran, which con- 
stituent of barley is richest both in ash and in phosphoric acid. The 
protein lost during malting is, of course, to be found chiefly in 
the malt sprouts. In order to be thus transported from the barley 
grain to the malt sprout, the insoluble protein had to be made soluble 
by the proteolytic enzymes which are always present in grains and 
only await propitious conditions in order to become active. The in- 
soluble protein, having been converted into soluble and movable 
protein, and possibly also having been changed into the amid form, 
migrates to the growing plantlet and rootlet and again becomes 
insoluble and fixed, just as the starch first becomes soluble before it 
can migrate, and through physiological processes again becomes 
insoluble in forming cellulose for the cell walls, etc. It should be 
noted that high-protein barleys lost on an average over 16 per cent 
of the total nitrogen, while the low-protein barleys lost about 11 per 
cent on malting, the former losing considerably more starch also 
during this process. 

Analysis of the sprouts or rootlets obtained from malted barley 
showed that they contained about 5 per cent of the total phosphoric 
acid, 20 per cent of the potash, and from 2 to 3 per cent of the lime 
and magnesia found in the malt. The difference between the total 
loss observed in malting and the above figures shows the amount of 
these constituents actually lost on steeping. 

Brown and Morris 6 show that in malting there is an increase of over 
300 per cent of cane sugar in the embryo and a still larger increase in 
the endosperm, besides which a large amount of maltose is found in 
the malt endosperm, having been produced from the starch of the 
barley endosperm. Similar results were obtained by O'Sullivan c long- 
before in his masterly researches on sugars. Delbriick a quotes Griiss 
and Schonfeld's work showing that despite the fact that enzyms are 
breaking down the starch into sugar during malting, a considerable 
reconversion of starch from the sugar takes place, especially during 
the drying of the malt. Hoffmann and others (see Delbriick) showed 
that the drying of malt likewise changed amids into protein. This 
has led to a comparison of the physiological process taking place 

a Untersucnung landwirtschaftlich mid gewerblich wichtiger Stofl'e, i>. 771. 
& Text-book of Science of Brewing, p. 74. 
cj. Ohem. Soc, 1886, 49: r>s. 
d J. Inst. Brew., 1900, 12: 044. 



SUMMARY OF RESULTS. 57 

during the drying of the malt Avith that occurring during the ripening 
of grains. Some work carried on in the Bureau of Chemistry on the 
changes in sugar and soluble nitrogenous constituents during malting 
and during the drying of the malt have failed to fully corroborate 
the above conclusions relating to the conversion of sugar into starch. 
The results show, on the dry basis, the following amounts of sugar 
(calculated as dextrose) : Barley soaked two days preparatory to 
malting, 1.16 per cent; green malt, 6.14 and 7.25 per cent; and malt 
(dried one day at 35° C), 8.3 and 11.47 per cent. An increase rather 
than a decrease in sugar has evidently taken place during the first 
day's drying, due probably to the fact that the slow drying at 35° C. 
with the large initial amount of moisture in the green malt was really 
a continuation of the malting process which continued until the 
moisture content became too low, due to evaporation, to carry this 
process any further. A slight decrease of sugar, however, is noted at 
the end of a month, 10.01 per cent being present in the sample which 
on the first day's drying contained 11.47 per cent. This work is 
being repeated. 

Our results further show that practically no change has taken place 
in the pentosans during malting. Tollens and Glaubitz " showed 
that the pentosan content of both barley and malt was the same, no 
change having taken place during the malting process. It is quite 
probable, however, that the carbohydrates necessary for the growth 
of the sprouts and for respiration during seed growth are furnished 
entirely or mostly by the more assimilable constituents, namely, the 
sugars normally present and those produced by the action of the 
diastase on the starch and also by the fat. 

The sulphur content increased perceptibly, according to these re- 
sults. This simply means, however, that some malts had been 
bleached by the use of sulphur, or else had absorbed some sulphur 
compounds from the products of combustion during the kilning 
process. In any case there has not been and there could not have 
been any real increase in the amount of sulphur unless the malts had 
absorbed it in some such manner. 

It is quite different, however, with the increase of lecithin, or rather 
alcohol and ether-soluble phosphorus compounds. Here we are deal- 
ing with a body, or several phosphorus-containing bodies, which are 
soluble in both alcohol and ether or in one of these reagents. The 
active physiological changes going on in the barley during malting 
have already been noted in so far as the losses in ash, phosphoric 
acid, and bran are concerned, and it is quite probable that some of 
the phosphorus compounds of barley, which are insoluble in alcohol 
and ether, go through some of these changes and become soluble in 

a J. Landw., 1897, 45 : 106, through Principles and Practice of Brewing, Sykes 
and Ling. 



58 



STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 



these reagents. That such is the case the results here reported would 
seem to indicate. Windisch has already shown that the phosphoric 
acid compounds of barley undergo a very great change in malting, 
the organic phosphorus being to a large extent hydrolyzed and con- 
verted to the inorganic condition. It is quite probable that some 
of this same organic phosphorus of barley, which is soluble in water, 
also changes into another form of organic phosphorus which is soluble 
in alcohol and ether. 

The great increase in sugar is easily explained from the effect of 
the diastatic action on starch. 

The growth of the embryo during germination is a natural one. 
At the full malt period it has increased nearly 100 per cent, the va- 
riation being from 38 to 209 per cent. This variation is because of 
the fact that some grains begin to germinate and then stop, the length 
of the acrospire being less than one-fourth of that of the grain itself, 
whereas in a good malt its growth should be from three-fourths 
to one. 

That a most active proteolytic action took place in the barley dur- 
ing malting is clearly indicated by the increased amount of soluble 
protein. Whereas the total protein suffered a loss averaging 12 per 
cent, the amount of soluble protein increased over TO per cent, thus 
showing that even as a very active diastatic action was noted b} 7 
the conversion of the starch into sugar, so an almost equally active 
physiological change due to the proteolytic enzym was being brought 
about in regard to the protein of barley. Similar results have been 
obtained by Brown and Evans. & 

The results given in the following table show the relative amounts 
of water-soluble proteins in high and low protein malts, and likewise 
the amount of protein rendered soluble on mashing and found in the 

wort : 

Comparison of soluble protein and proteins dissolved by mashing. 
HIGH-PROTEIN MALTS (6-ROW). 







Protein dissolved on 


Soluble protein based 






mashing. 


on total protein. 


Labora- 


Protein in 
malt on 














tory No. 


barley 


Based on 


Based on 




In malt 




basis. 


total 


total 


In barley. 


on barley 






substance. 


protein. 




basis. ' 




Per cent. 


Per cent. 


Per cent. 


Per cent. 


Per cent. 


102 


11.0 


5.08 


46.2 


16.1 


35.3 


91 


11.4 


4.89 


42.8 


18.0 


36.0 


.58 


11.3 


4.21 


37.2 


17.3 


31.0 


111 


11.3 


4.41 


39.0 


18.4 


36.0 


59 


10.7 


4.67 


43.6 


18.4 


40.0 


.51 


10.3 


4.44 


43.1 


17.4 


36.7 


71 


11.1 


5.30 


47.7 


17.9 


35.1 


73 


10.5 


4.91 


46.7 


17.4 


41.3 


84 


10.7 


4.35 


40.6 


18.2 


37.4 


12 
Average 


11.3 


5.65 


50.0 


17.1 


30.2 


11.0 


4.79 


43.7 


17.6 


35.9- 



a Loc. cit. 

6 J. Inst. Brew., through the Wahl-Henius " Handybook," pp. 42P»-t.°>.°». 



SUMMARY OF RESULTS. 



59 



Comparison of soluble protein and proteins dissolved by mashing — Continued. 
LOW-PROTEIN MALTS (6-ROW). 



Lai (ora- 
tory No. 


Protein in 

malt on 

barley 

basis'. 


Protein dissolved on 
mashing. 


Soluble protein based 
on total protein. 


Based on 

total 
substance. 


Based on 

total 
protein. 


In barley. 


In malt 

on barley 

basis. * 


16 
46 
53 
104 
115 
37 
22 
35 
32 

Average 


Per cent. 
10.2 
9.5 
9.6 
9.S 
9.5 
9.6 
8.0 
9.8 
9.8 


Per cent. 
3.40 
4.15 
4.12 
3.96 
3.89 
3.52 
4.19 
4.45 
4.36 


Per cent. 
33.3 
43.7 
42.9 
40.5 
40.9 
36.8 
52.2 
.45.4 
43.6 


Per cent. 
15.7 
17.6 
18.0 
19.1 
18.0 
18.1 
17.9 
17.5 
16.9 


Per cent. 
30.0 
35.9 
39.0 
35.5 
35.8 
42.1 
35.0 
37.9 
35.5 


9.5 


4.01 


42.4 


17.7 


36.3 



The figures show a somewhat higher percentage of protein dis- 
solved on mashing in high-protein malts, as Wallerstein a has already 
shown, also that somewhat more protein (10 to 15 per cent) is rendered 
soluble on mashing than by simple treatment with cold water. 

Kunz 6 showed that from 25 to 41 per cent of the protein was 
found in the extract, a somewhat larger amount of the nitrogen being 
rendered soluble in the high-protein malt, or small-grain malt, due 
to the greater activity of the enzyms present. 

The loss of total protein during malting has averaged about 12 
per cent when all of the samples, 2-row, 6-row Bay Brewing, and 
ordinary 6-row Manchurian are taken together. By separating the 
malts which were made from high-protein barley from those obtained 
from the low-protein barley it is shown that the first-named barleys suf- 
fer a greater loss of protein on malting than do the latter ; for example, 
10 samples of barley with high-protein content underwent an average 
loss of total protein in malting of 16 per cent, whereas the correspond- 
ing loss from 19 samples of low-protein barleys was 12 per cent. 

The work done on the comparative composition of barley and malt 
shows that about one-fifth of the ash constituents of the bran is lost. 
Heinzelmann is quoted as saying that 20 per cent of the phosphoric 
acid originally present is dissolved during steeping, soft waters remov- 
ing considerably more ash than hard waters. That a large proportion 
of this loss occurs during steeping admits of no doubt, as can be read- 
ily proven by merely soaking whole barley in water for several hours 
and then testing the solution for potash, phosphoric acid, etc. 

From the fact that such losses in mineral constituents occur during 
steeping and considering also some results obtained in this labora- 
tory on the amount of salts removed from the straw and grain of 



"Loc, cit, 



Through Pure Products, 1906, 2: 330. 



60 



STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 



barley on .soaking, it seems quite safe to assume that the results on 
the loss of these materials obtained by Wilf arth, Romer, and Wimmer " 
were not caused, as they conclude, by the excretion of plant food 
from the roots of plants, but by the action of rainfall, which may 
wash off the plant food that has exuded on the surface of the plant. 

The loss on germination is of great importance from an economic 
view point. The extent of this loss, which is due to the growth of the 
germ, to respiration, and to the fact that some of the constituents 
of the barley are dissolved during the process of steeping, varies con- 
siderably in the various barleys. However, the variation in loss in 
barleys of the same variety is greater than the difference in loss be- 
tween barleys of different varieties. This is due chiefly to the differ- 
ent methods of malting employed. The loss on germination as esti- 
mated from the 1,000-grain weight in the 30 samples of 6-row bar- 
ley was over 20 per cent in some cases, especially in the sample from 
New York, 2 sauries from Minnesota, and 1 from Wisconsin. On an 
average, however, the 6-row Manchurian or Oderbrucker barleys 
experienced a smaller loss during malting than those just cited, as 
did likewise the 6-row Bay Brewing barley and the 2-row barleys, as 
may be seen from the following table : 

Comparison of the loss on malting different hinds of barley. 



Number 

of 
samples. 


Kind of barley. 


Loss on 
malting. 


8 

5 

30 




Per cent. 
12.7 
13.0 

11.4 


6-row Bay Brewing . . . 
6-row Manchurian 



These results agree quite well with those of Kunz," who found from 
9 to 13 per cent to be the average loss during malting. Among the 
samples of 6-row barleys which were malted it is seen that on an 
average the loss of protein during this process has been greater in 
the high-protein than in the low-protein barleys; that is, 16 and 12 
per cent, respectively. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

This study of the composition of American-grown barleys and 
malts has been made in an attempt to show T the relative value for 
alcohol production and for brewing of the ordinary 6-row and 
2-row varieties produced in different portions of the United States. 
The determination and comparison of the composition of these bar- 
leys and the corresponding malts have afforded an opportunity to 
study chemically and physically the changes taking place during the 
malting of the barley. The tabulated data give these comparative 

a Loc. cit. 



CONCLUSIONS. 61 

results in detail as well as the changes in composition. According 
to these figures the 2-row barleys are somewhat richer in starch, ex- 
tract, bran, and endosperm, have a higher bushel and 1,000-grain 
weight, and a higher coefficient of mealiness and degree of dissolution 
than the 6-row varieties. On the other hand, the 2-row variety con- 
tains less protein, fiber, pentosans, hulls, sulphur, embryo, and steely 
grains than the 6-row. The Bay Brewing barleys have a higher bushel 
and 1,000-grain weight than the ordinary 6-row barley, but less pro- 
tein. The Utah Winter barleys have the most endosperm and contain 
the most starch, yield the most extract, have the highest coefficient of 
mealiness and degree of dissolution, and contain the least protein. 

The 6-row barley malts contain the highest percentage of protein, 
lecithin, soluble protein, and embryo, but are lowest in starch, ex- 
tract (in coarse grist), bran, weight per bushel, and weight per 1,000 
grains. 

The 2-row barley malts are highest in weight per bushel, extract, and 
coefficient of mealiness, but lowest in fiber, pentosans, hulls, and embryo. 
The Bay Brewing and Utah Winter barley malts are highest in 
starch, hulls, and weight per 1,000 grains, and lowest in protein, 
soluble protein, endosperm, extract (fine grist), and coefficient of 
mealiness. 

It has been shown that large kernels yield a higher percentage of 
extract than small kernels of the same protein content. The former 
contain more starch, weigh more per bushel, and give a higher co- 
efficient of mealiness. The heavier kernels average less in protein 
content and contain more starch. The small grains of the same vari- 
ety contain more bran, hulls, fiber, pentosans, and ash than do the 
larger grains. When barleys are divided into two groups — those 
of high and low protein content — the former are richer in fiber, pen- 
tosans, hulls, bran, and embryo; the latter weigh more per bushel 
and per 1,000 grains, and have more mealy grains after steeping, 
besides containing more extract, starch, and soluble protein. 

Mealy grains are generally lower in protein content. The per- 
manently steely grains are richer in protein. A high phosphoric 
acid content is generally accompanied by high starch and low protein. 
A larger proportion of the protein of low-protein barley is soluble 
than of the high-protein barley. The average percentage of protein 
in 6-row barley is about 12; of 2-row barley, 11.5; of Bay Brewing- 
barley, less than 11, and of Utah Winter barley, less than 10 per cent. 
The most interesting changes occurring during the process of malt- 
ing are the increase in sugars, lecithin, soluble protein, and embryo, 
and the decrease in starch, ash, phosphoric acid, potash, magnesia, 
lime, bran, hulls, endosperm, fiber, fat, and total protein. The pento- 
sans undergo very little, if any, change. 



62 



STUDIES OE AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 



=Q 



"fe 



^ 



"tiisduaej^ 



oiurj 



•qsBjOd: 



•supuSoOO'l i^d ^qSidAV 



•uuedsopu;.£ 



■OiOquiy 



■iraijf 



•sunn 



cogft 




■uia; 
-cud ib^o^ uj 



•iCajacq uj 



• uia; 
-cud ib^o; uj 



.©OfflHHHOnOlHOHC) 
f- —i CO n IN CM IN CO <N IN CN <N (M CN 



. Cc I- O CD 00 CO 1- C5 I- l~ Oi 1^- GO 
•-OO-hOOOOOOOOOO 



,n»NNNMIOOiHiHlC«rt 

^r^-cot^cDcDt^t^t^r^r^t^cDr^ 



.rtMOI-OH)NMO!DIOO* 

Si^aico»o»oo6iocdt^i^^^Q6 

C^ININCNCNINCNINCNCNCNINININ 



. cr. ~ XNnoO 1 



ONlONOiOCrH 
rH CO O rt IN <N 



R, t- i~ r~ r- t- t- t~ 



co ~ c: 
OXN ~ 

~' - 
- I- 



OJINCO 
OS r-J CO 



- 



.OiOiOIMOOOiCOO*ti"fC 
CN <N <N 






.0505t--aoas«-H<£>oo<0'-i'— t ■«* © 

wWNHOO^^MNQONOM 






^cO^COiO<©c0»O<X>CO'iD r -OQOO 



. ^ 00 CO O W IM 1M O N CO C C C 
*jHNOO00OMNCNO>0OO 

• rH^rH«c<5coc , cc^oc<ic s ic i ic>i 

I^HHHHrtHr- IHHHHr ' '""' 



•XapBq uj 



-Old y&\o% u\ 



'i&pBq ui 



"(95*9 X N) uia.jo.id {Tno j, 



•uu^ioai se suBiftioai 



■jnqdins l^ox 



*pi0B ouoqdsoqd ib^ox 



.(MHNtDOOlCflOCOOOOrHO 
iW'*iOcOCD^iOfCO'0'0 , tt 



.•cOiONN 



co^©i>-©t-co<M<: 
oioooot^coodt^ait 



. CO iC CO CO O H to CO O CO (M N -t 



IWrHHONrH(NW< 



,C000300:^'*H'#OC005^ 
^CXliOHCOiO^OliC^O^cOcOcO 



.OOJOOcOCiCOONWCNOJHH 
vnOLQiOiO'* l 1 i CC''OiO»OCO , t>0 



,C005H(NOONHOOOH050 
-03»OW00G0CO00CX)O100ON00 



&,© 



.OliHOOOlcOOOtNOONiONCXl 
^O^OOi05H05 0030HHO 



.coas^uocqoo5coi^Oii>cxi»o 



•qsy 



■8° 



t--l>-OiOt^OCic3iOiC01^c: 



•qojtns 



■suBso^uej 



•jaqij 



"Wd 



-aa^AV 



•S9iduiBS ;o jeqiunn 



■^(MNWOTPiOOJHWOOOiM 

^■aiocidoicocoGOoic^cxiot-^oi 
a H io>o»oioioioioiO'ioiocc!ioio 



.COCOGOCOCOHOOCSCOOOHCO 

^coocqNmco'OcoNNiocoM 
iociooooioicx5c50Joooi 



0," H~ Sh' 



.•OOiHCOOCMCOIMcOHCMcOOO 



JCOCOr- (rHOOCOlO^OllS-C 

jioiococoiocdioccoioioi 



."ONffiCOHOOCOiOWOOIH 
^01O03OOOOO»OCM0!O 

.-r^OJ^rHC^e>3CNCcir-H(>i(N^HC>i 



. <M O CO 00 CO >o CO -t i-- t- o iO CO 



50CCCOWOOC005NCONC 
)CftOOOOOOOicoScXJO^COGOOOC 



c^£« 






c9£ 



OHHUJNrtHlDHOJlrHf 



CONCLUSIONS. 



63 



a a a 

.£ 5 £; 

eg- 
gs 

o 



PQ 



•ssauAioiiaui 
n t asBajoui 
jo* aouaaaij'i(j 



■2nid99^s ajojag; ■ 



l - CC OOMdCHCOH CO CM O 

*r « ■+ w -t I- c -^ to ^ th o-p 



■pa^inSBoo 
uia^oad ajqmos - ib^av 



"J9^bm ui amnios ura^aij; 



■-2- iO CO O — -—i — O O I- X CM t- 
■CD©rH(— iOOOOi-H*OiOO*0 

■* co coos »o oi d -f c -h d K cm 

t^OOI>t>QOOOOOOOCDOOt>0000 

~oT£-» CO -^ GO (N ©"** NOINC _ 

lONiOOOOJNW'-COOJ'fOCO 

d m d r-I d d 06 r-3 06 to d n ^' 
c^T'c^-^^fi-Hi— <cm co co co -f 

.COLOHiiC0COlNCOCOb'*iO00 

j co --i o -* cd co T-H* 00 o 06 cm ci o 

■(MCOCOCNCNCOMCNCOCNCOCMCO 



.NNHOOOOiO'OONQOaiC) 
> CD id »0 cd t-^ "^ i>^ CD to CD CD td CD 



•A^iO'edBO ttuao 



.HOicoxcNOxaiooar^N 

WcDoic^t^QOOOJcOOir^GOcDCO 



•ASJ9U9 UIJ90 



.OOHOJiOOCOOOr-OiHNCOCN 

io"oc^aicood'^"<>i'-H(Ncoco-* 

■QG50^0000C)Qa>03ClCT)01CJ 



•uoT^niossip jo aaaSaa; 



CD X. --Z I- Sj CO D t-- t* t- CD CO GO 



. O t-h Cft CO ». Ci 52 CO N O H OO N 



■A>ais jibh 



•X]991S 



•^IBapi 



*- --H (M M ^ -h ci CN CM CO IM CO (M CN CM 



. O LO CO O Xi rH O >0 "O N &0 CM N | t~- 



•^I931SJI13H 



■XpaiS 



•I9JBAV 



.H^HNH^iotococo^iooi 

J± 

.OOlCOOlH^LOHOH^lO^ 
■^CO'OCO'^^CNCSlCOi-H'*^-^-^ 

_cC 

".au>CO^COCNb-*NOCNON 
■wiONOCOCONNOOO^^^CO 

ftj 

.(MCOrHtNCO-^Oi COCO CO OS cd~-* 
■^^005=OOOCOOliOCOrJH|>0 

■ rHodcNCNddddr-IoioicN 

. to 00 »o <— icoascD*^r--c35*^cOi-4 

■" o 10 o 10 ic to o 10 10 iO OJ o c 

^° 

.>0'tCDCN'-(Nt-»CNOO'^00»0 
■gOJ00HHOI>.H01CCOHO3O 

. iO •— 1 CO to O- Ol CD "(N CO CN Oi CO CO 

gojoa)ooooajxaiOia!N©OJ 

§°^ 

_o 

. Sj f- r— 1 CO t- X' CO D CD GO tri l-: c-i 

coOOb-OlONr- I CO O ]>• CM !>• <M CO 

SCDCOI^-rJH-^COTjicDl^CDCOCDt^ 
gC^CSC^CMC^CNCNC'lCMCNCMCNICNJ 

. cd co ^ CN"to~cDi-ro"r^"co"Ci"'cb" CD~ 

■g^HOJCO>OOCOCOiOOONOQ 

.•HNdddHOHoidooHH 

R i I>-I>-I>.CDi>.|>.t-.l>-(^Dt— CDt--W 

. CNOOtH ~ 1- o'er ?:ONOCOO~ 
^OOfOONOO>OiOHOa)N 

• NH^COHMNHCqNlNHH 

cJ to lo o o 10 »o to o o to 'O to iO 

p^l>C<HOO(NNNOiONN(N(N 

S n n d n d d n 10 d to d d 

S'^'O'^'^'^tO'-^-^'^-^Tfto^ 

o 

_ft< 

;nO!OOOC S> ^: "^ iO O IO CD IO 



■nra;oid gjqrqos 



« r 



•nra; 
-oad aiqnios-iavBAY 



•sareaS 
000' X -raci wSiaAV 



■sareiS 
000' X -i3<l iqSraAV 



•aoBi^xa 



•(ss - 9Xn:) nra*oi j 



qaqsnq 19^ 



•J9J!]0109q J9J 



•sajdures jo jaqmnjst 



*3 



c3 03 1. 

p. yd s 3 

p«5« 03.3 OjJ-- 



IHtONrtH: 



lOCOH^ 



72240— Bull. 124—09- 



64 



STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 



aq 



3q 



■BTsauSBK 
•ernvj 



•qsBjoa 



suibiS OOO'I Jdd 'jqSpAi 



■uuadsopug; 



•o£iquig 



~ CM <M <M <M Cl <M 
.1^ Oi t^ O I - 00 

~ooo-hoo 

a;° 

. o ds o co as 'X) 

fo f~ CO >0 CO CO CO 



. ci -cr o co coo 

: X — C I O I - O 




-£~ -<H t^ CO OS O0 CM 

„ • c-i ci d c-i c-i cm 



. N M 10 O CD O) 
"CONNI^COO 

, • ^ o o © o — i 



•sunn 



cjOh 



33.2 

SJ)-5 CD 

cao*i 

9 2 
o oj b 

fl-s ft 

o.gc 



•tnai 
-cud p3.)0 T ui 



•£ai.req uj 



•niaj 
-oid itnoi ui 



•Xai-req ui 



. CO N 00 O ^ CD 



. ^H O ^h — D CD 



. t~-^H 1^- I- 1- CI 

i CO t~ "^ CO -^ *o 



. O CN t-H O© © 



, T -J^ 7j Cl -H CO 



•ura_} 
-cud \i%o% u\ 



•Aa[.req uj 



•(9S'9XN) nia;oj,i 



•mmjoai sb scrempaq; 



.-HOd (NO-* 00 
•lOlQLOcdcd^ 



. Cl »- -T — CD X 



. t^ -HH Cl ~ CD c 

■^N^'tcDOC 

• COS lO © CO © < 



„-c* Cftl-~ 1- CO © 
> '- CO O ^cr 10 ^ 



•jnqdins 



. CO CO Cl OO CD GO 
^OiOK^CD 
JHCNHHrtH 



•picre ouoqdsoqj 



•qojB;s 



•suBSO^aad 



0,0 

. 0~--h GO CO"oO '^ 
■*- O00OOO 00 



CM CM (TMCI 



HOON^ 



CO CO CO CO 

-^ OS 00' 



00 CO I s - CO 
O" © i-H .-? 



iCHOON 



^o<-" 00 

CM -^ CO "*^ 



Cl CM <-H CM Cl Cl CM 



GO ©CO 00 



C0»0 OCO 



IO lQ "* "f »0 



. CO »C CD 1— 1 Cl Q 
■ CO CM ci CO CO CM* 



. CO "^ Cl CO CO Cl 

+ri CM i-n 00 CO CO 00 



. rfi CO Cl /. X 00 
£ GO GO t- ^ "*tf iO 

• OS O OS O OS OS 



&T » H 



•aaqij 



©01f~l 

ei ci ci < 



OS OS CO CO 

oioioo © 

lOiOlOCO 

CC) OS--H ©~ 
t^00"* CO 

OS 00 00' 00 



»0 16 10 t'- 



. CO © CO Cl 1— ( -^ 



. co -cf o c 1 1 - r_ 



H00O* 

CN ^HCCICCN 



NtJICNO 
06 00 00 00* 



l~ t~- 1^ 00 rH ■* CO 

ooo©-h o© 



£2 



6 ° 

-§:§.§ Ill 



XuTtOO)«iO 

tsi t» t*- i-*- 1-^ t*- r*- 



GO OS "-C CO CO "-O -— 1 
Cl CM O CO 1-- CO 00 

iO 00 CO rH Cl CO o 
CO CO ^ "^ CO CM CO 

" Cl" CO i— < CO t 1 T 00 



Cl © co O CD OS co 
CO to -— 1 iO uO iO CO 

cm cm cm cm cm ci ci 



i-K CO © Cl O OS OS 

r- 10 10 cm ci co tp 

Cl O i-5 CM O CO ^ 



CO O N Cft 00 N >0 
O N O t- C-l CO Oi 

rn'odoioicid 



cm co co os »o OS h- 

HOHCOOOON 



tP CO •* ^ O iO -^ 



rO co X C'DCD'-' — 
•^ CO CO '-O CO I- t-C 



^ -^ O Cl CO CO Cl 
co 1^ 00 00 CO O CO 

o ci co ci ci i-h w 



Cl CO CO '00 ^ CO !-■ 
i-h CO Cl OS CD CO C) 



co r-- co o 00 ci as 

1- r-- os t- co os o 



•*f 00 t^- r- r- co co 



»-o co ^ ci r - -*r 1 



CD ^ CO O CO CO OS 
CO "^ 1— 1 i— * O O CO 



O O OS CO CO CM O 



OS CO I"- CO LO Cl CO 



i-t "^ O OS CO Cl o 
CD iQ GO CD GO 00 CO 



O OS CO CO O CO Cl 

OS OS O i-h -— t 00 o 



CM GO Cl Cl OS OS CD 



GO ^ CM OS CM CO r-t 

CO IO l> IO IM C C-l 

6 in 1* cc 6 d r4 

CO CO O *-0 CO CO CO 

CO CO CO Cl OO CM 

CCCOCOCOO^^ 

CO GO 00 00 CO OS GO* 



Cl OS CO CO 00 CO O 
LO i> »o CO CO i—i t- 

id ^ *n >o "^ cd tp 



iONTt<OCOiOO 



I ^H CO CO N Q0 Cl 



utk 



03^ IB o 






•sajdniBs jo laq-nmjsi 



00 ^H CO ^1 CO CM 



cq io^h ^-1 o> 



1 ^-1 >-l IO — I rH . 



CONCLUSIONS. 



65 





H CI 


CM 




CM CN 


OI 




OiOO 


00 


"V- 


o o 


a 


o 


oboo - 


CM 


CO 


COCO 


■s 


CO 


s~s ~ 


o 


<x> 


OS 


CO 


■^ 


OCX) 


00 


o 


1 


o CO 


CO 


CO 


Nj CO 


CO" 


Oi 


CD H 


lO 


CO 


cooi 


oi 


oi 


1 


*- r~ 


l ~ 


o 


•CO ^-< 




C3S-* 


*0 


OS 


NM 


oi 


oi 


irji-i 




CO 


cos 


CO 


oi 


— 5 oi 




00 


,-H ,-H 


7-1 


rt 


O00 


en 




St-H 


CO 




ho 


o 




^-t T-^ 


1-1 




O i.O 


-r 


CO 


oo 


CM 


CN 


CO lO 


to 


"* 1 


s~03~ 


~^p 


— rt~ i 


o iO 


CO 


ira | 


1-1 




1 


-CHCO 


lO 


o> 


~3<cn 


U5 


'O 


C3CO 


oi 






'" H 


7-1 _ 


co~ ' 


S 00 


~m~ 


CO CO 


>o 


s 


0>- 




' H 


^ 




'X 


oa 


VOl 


s 


oS 


iraci 


s 


co" 


T-H T^ 


'""' 




-tt< r~ 


l- 


s 


soi 


o 


O) 


oi i-i 


oi 


oi 


6To7~ 


^ 


CO 


co o> 


CO 


o 


s ai 






r ~ ( 


1-1 


r_l 


Oi *& 


CN 


r~ 


"5iO 


lO 




com 




~~ Oi 


lOCO 


f- 




<M -H 






S lO 




CO 


NO 


o 


o 


rH '~ l 


""' 


rt ' 


CO lO 


'X' 




.-(00 


00 


CM 


cooi 


c-i 


oi ' 


rtCO 


ot 


s~ " 


aa t~ 


o 


ti< 


»C oi 


aa 




lOio 


'^ 


CO 


^CH Oi 






Tf O 


■* 




odod 


00 


oo' 


co-^ 


CO 




CO 00 


oq 


CO 


IQTji 


to 


"O 


COCO I 


"S" ' 




<M Oi 


o 




cNi-I 


oi 


oi 


O — I 


<N 




Oco 


as 


h- 


ood 


CO 


od- 








a) 


GO ' 








bo 


CO • 








cc) 


W C 








o 


3^ : 




03 


> 


i 2 cj 


2 S 


<J 


3 « G 


c3 cd 

g g 




U oi £ 
§ 


c3 


o 







66 



STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 



O 

s-. 

«d 

s 
B 



*w 




8" 




B 


h-l 




w 


Bs 


■*] 




£ 


<u 


H 


05 




Sft 


a 


B 
«5 


O 


3 


!h 





ffl 









P 


g 


w 


Rh 


■ £ 








-1 


CO 


H 


CO 


a 


a» 


O 






B 




£ 




B 


h! 


Si 


n 




(7> 


5- 


H 


.0 


tf 



















HClOHrJtrjl 


CD.~n 




CCN"OOOt- 


O ! 


t- t^t-O 


■* 


^ iH CO a. CO N 


-J9UI UI 9SB9J0 










os to os rr r^ os 




oca 


-III JO 9DU9J9JJ!d 


CD CM GO -<J» CO »0 


CD ' 


iO f- co»o 


t^ 










-HCCOtD 
iCOiOO 




Tt* t-( O Tf TP TJ. CO 




Tfi LO OOO COCO 


CD 


■0 


iCOOCOHO 


■Stnd99 r s J91JV 




1^ 


O^H COOi 


,_j 


r^ t^- ao 00 co co t-h 


fflv-' 




00OOJ00O1W 


CO 




OJ 












CO r-t TT< OS CO OS 




HoocqoNoi 




COCN t^ O 





OOhOOCOW 


O 


•3mdaa T s ajojag 


O -3* CO CO ^ 


1H 


^ ^ ^ _^ 


,H 


OO CO i—l 00 OS O t-1 


















. CM r~ OS CO -rj« CO 


CO I 


CNCO CN--H 


■* 


O CO CO CO CO 00 CO 




•paitftnStioo 












u i 8 % i d ajqnps-ja^AV 


_• CM CO CM CM CM CO 


CT 


CO C-J CO CI 


CM 








. OS CO CO OS ON lo 


CD 1 


WtlOO 


>o 


O -^ "M CO iO N ^P - 


•ina^ojd ajqnios-ja^jVV 


^ "^ O CO "H* CD >C 

^rHCM 


lO 


GO OOO OS 

H(NHH 


05 


16 06 10 *o CO t-~ 10" 






.1OOXCNOO 


lO 1 


C 1 CO ~ OS 


rH 


OS CN "5 CN O t^ Tj* 




•i^IOBdBO UIJ90 


w os 10 os tp os os 
_ • os CO os 


CO 
CT> 


OS CO OS OS 
OS OS OS OS 


OS 


OS 10 O-l OS vo os CO 

OS O Os OS Os OS Os 






. tO O Ol ^ « rH 


^ 1 


iO IVtf iO 


lO 


^ O t>- OO CN iO CO 




\iSl9U9 Xnl9Q 


u MHdooco 


OS 


HHCON 

OS OS OS Os 


PI 

OS 


iONO>0 00 
Os Os OS OS OS Os OS 






COCO CN O CO Tl* 


CO 1 


OS CO CO CM 


00 


iO CN CO C^ CO OO 


•uoiuijossip jo 99j§9<i 


»o -^t* co os r— »o 

00 os r-os *o 


CO 
00 


C1NOC1 

ocooos 

1—1 T-l 


OS 


OSOCONOlO 

co r- ^ i^- »o 00 










(NiONTli 


LO 


OUCONHOL'; 








•^ CO Tfi OS CD OS uO 


t^ 


QO 00 OS CO 


CO 








■jCreapi 


&; 












a 






















IN ^ Tf IN lO CO CI 


a 

(-1 
CD 
& 


CD 














CD 


•^laajsjiBH 


^ 


















CO 


TtlHOcD^^CO 


















73 

s 


« 


•^iaa^g 


ft." 
















CO^ Tt^OS 




HMiO^OOO 


















CD 


bo 




\£p3ajt 


fti 










§ 


ft 

CD 

























I COCDHONOH 


-H 




■gCM-fCrCO CM-f 


CM 


r-<T-HCN<M 


CM 







8 

■2 


•^laa^sjiBH 


0, 
















r^-1-^ CO (N 


OS 


I COHTTN«OC' 






■"OMNION-* 


CO 










ffl 


•i£l99JS 


^ 


















coTt<b-T-^ 


*tf< 


I N CO CO IO rH ■* -* 






■^^^OjOCOCO 


CO 


CD C^ CO CM 








•J91EAi 




O 


OS OOs O 





HCILOOCKOO 






Q^rH r-lrHT-i 


^ 




1-1 


1 HHHH ^^ 


















•mg^ojd aiqnps 


■« ■* ■* 10 "* 10 


lO 










-ia)BM ajqiiinSEOO 


a;° rt 








1 








OIMOSCC 


CO 


1 CO 00 O OS -^ CO ■ O 




•inajojd 


** ■* CM CO O CO Os 


t~ 




















CD 
CD 

a 




&< 
















1 HQOCOW 


OS 


1 ^ ■* 00 N US O 1 






S CN OS ^ O ^ O 


(N 


COCN CO CO 






to 


•SUVBlS 





^ 


tHt-1 t-I tH 


rH 


^h ,_; rH _-i ^ ^ _; 


CD 
CD 


000'T J8d ?qSi9AV 




















I CO CO '--1 HO »-o IO 00 




00 CN r— GO 10 


>o 


vf ^ l— "-J 




CN O CO CO CO CO Tf 




■SUIBJ3 






NCONN 


CO 


1O00NHH00N 


CD 


OOO'T J3d iqSiaAV 


<3 CO CN ^ CN "tf <M 


CO 








03 




£j 




1 






















*JOOM^(M^ 


CO 


COCN OCO 




O) H H ^* N ^ C 1 


t— 1 


•^oBi^xa: 






CO ^ lO ^ 


■* 


CO -^ Os r-t ria: CO 






!<, N CD N O b- N 


t^ 












. CC "O CD CO >0 r-i 
*j T-l IN- O lO OS CN 

.■OiOOMOC 


yCO 


I Tji y-^ i— 1 

CO ^ »oco 


CO 


O-'OON r-i ri 
ONiOHOcDO 




■(5S - 9XN)m9loa c r 





CiONC 
rH r-H 


OS 


t-1 O OS CO CI rH rH 
rH T-i r-H t-H rH r-H 






.: "J 10 io iC 

r§ O CN !>• O CN I> 





1 lOiOiOW 
t-CNt-t- 


10 


1 lOOiOOiOOlO 
CN iO In. O CN >0 CN 










^oocdo- 


1^ 








g rp CO -f **J* ^ "^ 


■* 






to >0 »0 tO lo ^r IO 


'8 




a, 




■ 






cocot~ 




• i-h CO CO CO c 





ncocoi- 


CO 


OS rH OS r-H 


£ 














•ja^iiojoaq aaj 


IS tO 10 CO »0 CO iT 




IO CD CO CC 


CO 


CD CD t~~ CO CD CD CO 





























CD - 
















CD 


So cc 


1 

c 

C 

1 


r 


| 


d 
^ 

- r 

= ' V 

= V 

2 J 


tx 
C3 

CD 
> 
< 


5^ 

s 

w 

^S c 
P » 




d 


s r 
2Z 


03 

t-l 
CD 

> 


O CS 

C 


CC 
P 

r 
C 


| 

C 


•c 
-r 

: 

= 


1 


O '• 

™ . 
O • 

fflH 




S9iduit 


s jo jgqnin^i 


OC 


1- 


er 


r- 


c 


<> 


1 CO 

I th 


II 
II 


f 


1- 




Os 


l • 






ir 




rH rH 



CONCLUSIONS. 



67 





__, 


co 


1 °° 


1 ■* ' 


oooo 




o 


ooi 


00 


r^ 


CO *0 


10 


iO 


t~~ O 


1 *-* 


o 


oo 


CO 


lO 


oi 00 


CO 


a> 




f - c~ 


00 


OS 


- r- 


CO 


1 co 




•& 


^ 


CO CO 


ui 


£! 




^rco 


CM 


•*f 


03 CO 


co 


o 


-^(N 




t^ 




-,-. pQ 


CO 


IM 


T 1 ~ 


CO 


1 ° l 


»oo 


r-^ 


<m 




""" 


""' 




30 CO 


TT 


CO 


co'oi 


irf 


00 


< 


r. - 


o 


03 


Sn 


rH 


00 


oi"cd 


-<* 


1^ 




» — 


O! 


OS 


-H ■* 


00 


CO 


I^cO 




00 


t^-rH 


00 


CN 




"- 1 




^ 


iiO CD 


CO 


03 


co en 


t~ 


o> 


OG"*' 






<M 


cm 




t-o 


CO 


<= 


CI CO 




o 


<M<N 




CO 


<MO 


r~ 


Th 


iOC0 


CM 


CM 


CO t- 


(M 


CO 


(M^ 


O 


■* 


CO O 


o 


IO 


"5S 


o 


00 


,-h o* 




ci 


T-tT-H 


'"' 1 




•^Jl i-H 


CO | 


o 


OCO 


CO 


TJ1 


OSi-t 


CO 1 


r- 


OO 


OS 


CO 


Ctrl 


1-1 


-* 


oi b- 


CO 1 


CO 


MM 


CO 


c 






■" 


OO 




o 


r^-GO 


CO 




■^ CO 


50 




CO CO 


co 


CM 


a: ».o 


t^ 




COTp 


--C 


o 


oa co 


CO 




CO t- 


t^ 


r- 


TfCO 1 


CO 


r^ 


Tf«0 


t~ 


00 


r^o 




c-i 


1H1H 


M 




IC O 


— 


o 


tN O 


o 


IO 


r^»o 


oi 


CO 


■** io 


>- 


co 


Or-I 


CM 


CO 


O^H 


r^ 




as t-- 


CO 










©' 


gq 








oo 


to ,A 




S 




03 
CD 


LL-LE 
-K0W 

na.. . 


w P 


«! 




P<M c3 


PC 




«"- -g 


c3 O 




3 


ws 




a 


•-H IO 1 


30 ! 


,_, 








^ 





68 



STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 



OQ 



£ UI3)Ojd 

oi.3 i i B i°i °i 



.oo-tfoomiooooo 



I, I l-l.-f 



~ 5,8 i 

cS^ft •)|i:uiu I 
I «3 



3-2 e 



niaicud 

HUoj ux 



•}yGui nj 



^'»OOOO^CN« 00 CO 



^* 10 o co x re ~ ~ ~ r^ o 

c_> CD IN ^f CN CD n< CO l^- H CO 

„ " CO IN CO CO CO — '' o 'O H CN 

B^ (N CO CN 0-1 CM CO CO CN <N ■* 



^MNtONMNNfO ON 
yOOONr^cotO^O: to CN 

,' CO CO COCO COCO COIN tNtd 






nia^ojd 
1b;oj ui 



■;puu nj 



•(S2-9X 
N) uiaiojd ibjoj, 



•uiqi 

-1091 SB SUBqi!08 r I 



•jnqdiiis V^ojj 



^•^"-h^S'ZO'X 1 CO o 

O CN co o co 00 y-t co O i-H co 

*'odo o to co .06 oi oS co 

H<CO*rt*COCOrOCOCOCM CN *f 



^•Hccoooco-tn coco 



^•NODONOOlO't COt^ 
ococor-icq^^pco'^ --< co 






■ o 'X- 'Q o co -t< co r-- 100 
>coi^r~.r~t^i^r^cD co oc> 



•pixo luntsauSBH 



R,= 



^TfOOrHOOMf H 

.CNINCNCNCN.-IOS'-I 

0iO 



^ r^- ci co ;o »o 






■pixo mnpi'Ej 
•pixo lunissBjOd 



0,0 



•piOB 

ouoqdsoqd p_nox 



•xeSns aireo 



•jbSus ;aaAUi 



oco 

aio 






N00 ^O^ (MO> 



«3 



co co — t o -— 1 o ai co .-< 



INiOCDHOONO 
'CqCNOJc4(NCOc4c4 



•qoa^s 






CD 01 
1^ o 

COr-i 



H IQ « lO Tj 



CO »o ^ ■* 10 



OO CN O to 
CN to 04 CO *£ 

O •* t~ O Oc 
CO CN IN CN CN 



to CO 

-PO 
IN CO 



in —< a 1-1 co 

sp 40 N O N 
IN IT-5 IN IN CO-i 



OOOIOO 
"* INOINO 

CO CO CO CO CO 



CO 00 
<N(N 



to O 00 o 00 



r~to 
<n'co 



O -cH Ui -+ [— 



00^1 



MHNcqN 

co r^ co t~ o 



co ^ a o 3 
10 *r 10 00 oj 



CM CN —I IN r-l 



r^ t^ cc co co 

00000 



OCON^CN 



O) O Q O O 



o — r~oo- 

toaiocH 

IN Ol tN IN IN 



,-100 
<N CN 



CO »o 
IN ui 






• CO t^ O0 r-i o CO ^f (N 000 



> O CD 00 CO t^ 

iHoodHod 



- WriUUUMUU CJJ >-^ 



lOH&jMTtiOlN 

i id id ic; 10 d 10 io 



•1B.S 



lOOOHHHHCO 
'cNCN'-HINCvilNCNIN 



•jai'BjVV 



•— i-hccc^oci^-cncn 



Ci CO 
r-i IN 



O IN N CO CO 



^1 IO CO to 1C 



O O CD CO CO 
CD CO lO td to 



^-1 ^H ^H O T-l 

IN c-i C-i IN IN 



a f 









o g 
I PS So 



£ 5 

11 



•saiduius jo jaqiun^ 



WrHHCOIOHtJiH 



CONCLUSIONS. 



69 





IC lO 1 


LO 


-p 05 


t^CTS 1 


■o 


■j5id 


lO CO 


CO 


— <>1 


ira cm 


r- 


OO) 






© -f II « ** 


CM 


[^ CO | CO CO 


CO 


OO <* II t> ^ 




cq« wn 


CM 


--4 LC 


r-i 1C 


00 


E-- lO 


LO >B 


o 


c4^ 


cm'* 


CO 


00 o 


CT> 05 


o 


i-H (M 


l-H CN 


■<*< 


in i-h 




CO 


co -^ 


CO ■* 


CO 


CO h- 


as r-- 


U3 


CO -t 1 


o ■* 


l~ 


CO >o 


CO iO 


CO 


r^ io 


CD LTi 


CM 


"* CM 


■O CM 


CM 


oico" 


COCO 


O 






"" ' 


00 h- 


t~ l-~ 


o 


©t^ 


co t- 




~v o 


CMO 


»o 


t^ CO 


-CH CO 


CO 


r~* CN 


rH CM 




O O 1 t— (N 


o 


iM (M 


^ CM 


CM 


t-^ © 


COCO 


^ 


© o 


So 


o 


O 30 


-* CO 


,_, 


■^ -* 


CO -^ 


<tf 


"i © 1 1 GO © 


CO 


© — t 


Oi rH 


o 


^ 


'- 1 


-< 


d -c 


CO CO 


CN 




CMOc 


w 


oic-i 


CM CM 


CM 


o © 


COCO 


,_, 


OOJ 


Ol © 




^ ro 


CO i6 


T* 


©-* H ic -^ 


t~~ 


Tf» O II h-© 


CO 


© n-3 | Oi-H 


t^ 


-II - 




00^ |L a 


CO 


f -71 || OS LO 


Oi 


rH 0C II GO (N 


o 


io-+ -t< m 


lO 


■ -? '1 <N CO 


CO 


30CT! j| 70 *3S 


o 


go ai ii go ai 


OS 


U5 _* l| r H 


CM 


» ~ we: 


cS 


-*.*|^ 


^ 


an 


1 © ;o 


t-~ 


OlO 




<Ji 


rl CM 


-CM 


r " i 


-*f CO 


l*^- CO 


O 


Oc CO 


CM CO 




-1- CO 


■* CO 


irf 


h ;i i ; 


; 


j . . . ; 




< 


CO 
03 


s 





i"3 fil 



CClr- 1 
SI 



70 



STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 



a ° 






1 


w» 


(* 


1 


tf 


4 


H 




W) 


e 


a 


~ J -l 


H 


s^ 


w 


■o 


o 


"w 


p=( 


c^ 


o 


s 




~ 


i-> 




< 


cs 


w 




M 


so 


£ 


~ 


ffl 



Xepu-q oi ubuijo 
000*1 wd ^q3i9M 9X0 J° °M«H 



coco-roct^ogao*^ 



CI -X ■£ -1"f ©ooo> 
00 X 00 Oi >X 00 00 l> 



C3 fe> 



■suiejlI 



SUIT3J9 

000' I -wd Ul^idAV 



KiO^rfOOHB 



S CI U3 cc CO 



<3 



"1 fj « fl O) « N IN 






irWMNMC-l oi CM CM 



a> fl .S 

02 ™ ^ « 



Aaiacq urn 
-iSuo oj ]>ajci 
-noiBO jrhu ui 



•.Caijeq nj 



^ ' CO CO t^ t~ t^ "* 1-- -^ 






-1" cm 
> CM -T< 



S * c -5 
§3 -9.8 

S"3)T, u 

3 cs P— : 



og 



o is o 



•XayBq pen 
-iSuo o; pa;Bj 
-iiopo iibui ui 



'tJ(io»0'0'ONIO^ 



^OhCX^C-C 



' co cm cc co oo ^h a »o 

HCNCOCNCNCMCOcacN 



CM "* 



-.Caiaeq ui 



* CO CM CO OS OS CO CM CO 



.9 o- 



-.A'apreq pni 
-iSijo o% pa^i 
-T10IB0 i\gui ui 



-A"ap3q ui 



< CO CM ^h CM CM CM i— I 



;nh^hosoo 



lOOCtQiOcCOOO 
ICO-^COCOCOCOCOCO 



■*^I^-^as^»f3cMO00 



o cd go r^- C— r- os r>- »i3 

»~H,-i,-i.-l,-1r-HrHrHr-< 



•S-'s 
o *f2 



2 «S S<s3 - 

■3 8.2-cS 

O (33+- 

M 2 « 



•Xaireq psu 
-i2uo o; pa;«i 
-hoiBO iibth_ uj 

•jfaiJ'eq ui 



;«iOCO^O)>OCO 



(0,0 



■XaiJBq i^u 
-i§uo o; pai^i 
-ho p30 q .p;ui ui 

•Xavreq ui 



00<M^00cOCD0C"O 






; r^- <_- CCOOiO 



s £i C CO i-l >0 Oi H CO 



(^ CO COCO 



NMeoeow 

t- <M i-< t-H r-H 



•^ajjBq feu 
-iSuo o% pa^i 
-riOTT30 1T.T3UI ui 

•^ayjBq ui 



j'OSCMCS-tfCOOOtOcD 



■^OrHiOiOOOt^aicC 
^IMHCOOOWQO) 



CI <N <0 <N C4 CI C4 ■-< 



*A9IJBq TBU 

-iSuo 0} pa^i 

-ilOTBO 1JBUI UI 



> (M O CO I- 'DO >0 Oi 

JHCOHOCi^H 



•XaiiBq ui 



■uuadsopug; 



•oXiqurg; 



n i— 1 O i— iCOOJOiO 



: OS ■* O CO CO O CO O 



^'HXINOCCH- 
OOlHCOCIHriOC 



<n r- 1^ t~-i 



?NiOOOOU3H'£)CO 



WtQHCO 



©ocoo 



!tDCO'#iOOOO'0 
^(DCOHOMNO 

'odt^oooooo'r^odod 



•snnii 



^(M^^Ot^-diOcOCO 






^h ,_, o r- -f 

NXOhT 
-f iO ci QO cc 



CI ^ -H 00 O 

f t-^ 1-- O "V 

CONNOR 

CO CO CCt CO 



-f O 00 -+ CO 



CO CO CO CO CO 



ci ■- CI -* ^ 
C I t - oc ■* o 

■«^ uri tt tj< urj 



»-^ ci -j: os iq 



CO C4 <N W C4 



00 io O100 r-* 



-saiduiBS jo laqxunj^ 



2's : -- '2 : § a si 



WHrtCOXH-t-l 



NCX CI O 
COWOXNO 

CO CO CO CJ CO 

OOlTdX 

coiO-rTi- 

■f TflOCOT" 

ooooox 
■^H^roco 

c^ c^ c4 ci ci 

cq<N I- t^Oi 

CO M iO Cl ^ 

00 CD CI CI CO 
£^- <^J> CT> l^ OC' 

ci ci <n c4 ci 

(N t&T-t O O 

t- IfJ ,-H '^ QJ 

CD Ol CO CIO 
00 od ci oi 00 

OS 05 Ci CI — 

Cioiooio 

■^ CI Ci Oi *-> 
lO T CO CN CO 

c3 1-5 to c4 eo 

O^ CO co ^A 
CI CO CJ CM CI 

w5 ^ co io "^ 

to iO 1^ Oi OO 

GO 00 00 00 Oi 

00 H <M -* t— 
CiP !>■ C-1 »0 1Q 

>o io t-h co ci 

p m ; ; : ; ; 

L, H ..... 

-< < : ; ; : ; 

£ K ..... 

H^ W\i\ 

w fe > os • : if. j 

« * s* -a : : Sf 8 
bs2 S ■ :-9§ 

< M ,o 2 j= « — 






CM CM — < CM — 



CONCLUSIONS. 



71 



00 lO 


o 


CO CO 


1 'S 


pH 


o 


=>o 


n 


T-HO 


1 *ooo 


CO 




ci 


N OS 


OSO 


>o 


oc at 


00 


00 N 


t-OI 


00 


N M 


as 


os co 


coco 


2 


OC-I 




co N 


N CO 


-* 


00 i-H 




CON 


oi cs 


N 


Ol -p 


:o 


coco 


coco 


CO 


CO X 


lO 


coco 


coco 


-f 


t-r-4 


-r 


oo 


o o 




o ;C 


ro 


CO to 


CO rti 


c<i 


CO CO 


ro 


cocm 


CM CO 


CO 


con 


e 


CO CO 


COCO 


IO 


CI N 


- 


-c»OS 


N OS 


»o 


COCO 


■* 


COCO 


lOcC 


CO 


M 05 


^o 


OSIO 


IOCO 


O 


— "O 


rH 


OSO 


ooo 


00 


rH>0 


-P 


>OiO 


IOCC 


»o 


OS rH 




CNiO 


CO IO 


-H 


o: in 


2 


nco 


CO CO 


00 


oi c 


n 


od"t 


N Tji 


OS 


oi co 


ri 


CM CO 


CM CO 


(M 


ro CO 


CO 


H«CO 


COO 


CO 


01 rH 


ro 


OKI 




CO 


rH SO 


CO 


cooi 


ci *ti 


CO 


Hrt 


r " 


HH 


Hrt 


i-H 


N W 


00 


CSN 


N t~ 


O 


«o so 


c 


i-HCM 


T-H CI 


^ 


X '0 




•Oi-i 






CM CO 


ro 


«)■* 


CO-c» 


CO 


DO -f 


CO 


OS 00 


OOO 


■CH 


Nt> 


>o 


ioco 






>o — ; 


N 


OsN 


NO 


OS 


rH rH 


"- < 


i-H i-H 


rHCM 


rt 


-f rH 


CO 


■*co 


NCO 


N 


CM CO 


-^ 


ON 


-fi N 


*o 


xc- 


cm 


OS CO 


rH N 


OS 


O 'C 


X 


lOCD 


lOcc 


•o 


C 1 OS 


NCM 


CMC) 


CM 


ooc 




coco 


CM CD 




oioi 


ci 


c4co 


CM CO 


ci 


-c N 


Tf-H 


HH 


OS 


O to 


ro 


COCO 


CM cr; 


CO 


,HrH 


~ 


rHj-H 


rH'rH- 


- i 


co >-0 


,_, 


osm 


-*< "O 


CC 


'TO CO 


GO 


00 CO 


t~ CO 




oi ro 


CM 


CM -3* 

-H N 


CM -CB 
ON 


CO 

o 


■ro ^ 


ro 


COrH 


N 


CSCM 


00 01 


o 


rH 


rH 


i-H<M 


t-HIM 


oi 


CM 01 


OS 


CO ■* 


o-# 


o 


(C ~ 




CM IO 


CO io 




so rr 


00 


CO c 


NO 


00 


1-1 




rH 


7-1 




'O -r 


lO 


SO CO 


OCO 


00 


Nrf 


00 


coo 


too 


^T* 


Nt-^ 


OS 


os a 


OSK 


o 


'"' 




' H 




rt 


IT- OS 


N 


ON 


OS N 


IO 


as :o 


CM 


CO io 


CO CO 


*o 


Cs -0 


C\ 


o »o 


IO00 


CO 


CO N 


N 


NN 


NN 




•ro -f 


r_- 


ON 


ION 


>o 


:o OS 


n 


rH GO 


^00 


CM 


ro if 




■*■* 


COTf 


■* 


Ot- 


■* 


CMC 


OCO 


N 


1 QC 


n 


00 cc 


CO CM 


»o 


00 C 


oc 


O0N 


NO 


00 












Clt- 


3 


00N 


CO N 




<N« 


? 


(NO- 


-T iO 


CO 


— i --C 


•* 


d- 


OSO 


o 


rH r- 




rHr- 












H 






























a 


< 








eo" 






Co 

e 


■ S 








tso 

a 


5l 

'5 £ 


\ 


Ci. £ 


r* 

> 


IJ 


> 


■ - o 




o a 




37 




£2 


ss 








oc 


Tf 








1 '° 



STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 



1 


- 
< 


<u 


^ 


e 


H 


OQ 


X 


Sj 


M 


-o 


PQ 


"W 


Q 


*j 


pri 


O, 




s 


K* 


c 


M 






c 


P 


~ 


W 


42 


£ 


c 




s 


H 


V 


PQ 




O 


*» 


M 


5»s 


H 


a 


P 


£ 


W 


^ 


W 




« 



■(UAVoag) ssau 
-!lB9ui jo juapijjaoj 

■.jjoai jo unjj 

•paHjmSis 
-OD urajoju aiqniog 

■Sinqsciu Xi| paAjos 
-sip uiajcid ib^oj, 



— ~ r- co r- cr- ci oo li ci o 



:o>oo o 

00 CT> t- 35 OC 00 Olt- 
HffiOO)OiO-iC 

ci -4 ci ci ci <N cn ■* 



©00 

cooo 



.OOOOWi-'MN-* II Tl< C 



cj cr 



CD t- »C N r-t CO Oi 
CO CO CO CO ■* CO CS 



•jaqsiui Jaj 



•.i.i|)io)oai[ jaj 



• j.w.i i 
-xa ui aoiia.iajji(3 



•jsuS 
a s j b 'jOKEpcg 



: o ci »o 10 o 



~x co 10 >o t - co 

"-1 CO CO CO CO CO 



.-c*00 10 10 

> ira >ri 06 ci 
* ^ -rr* *c* *v 



coco 



CD 00 UO CO CD C 



? O iO CD CO CO OJ 1^ 
i -CP ON -cf'l -en CI ■* 



LO CO CO CO o 00 o w 



CO t^ CO t^ CD CO r^- CO 



•IL,V\0J3.I3A0 



.OOOO— "—ICO" 



.lONKCOOK'CIC 
-£-0COt^c000c000CD 



•ero 01 s'o 



. ^ r-- 00 i - co co ^ 00 

> i-H i-i CM -H CI -H CO 



■g'O o; ss'o 



•yc-o oi 



•A"ieapi 



•Aiaajs jp3H 



•A'laaig 



. O O CM CM CO CO CI O 



.HrHWOMMOlr-t 



.HiOCOCONWOO 

> r~ os r- go c~ r- oi co 



. 00 -cf |-^ ^ CC CO X CI 
■^-H _ ,_, ,_, CO 

J^ 



■ajnjsiOH 



■StuqSlUU 

Xq paA josstp 
uiaioid ajqrijnSBOO 



.CICTJ. 
- -CF CO I 

• CD 'O < 



<r^CO"OfflOO 



.lOHNrfCOM 
00 <— < 'O CD Oi CD 1"~ O 



T- x —1 

Old 



•Stnqsuui 
A"q paA]ossip urajojj 



•suitijS 
00' l' -13 d 



•suibjS 
OOO'l" "J 



.CONOJCONiOQO 
jO^OOr-^COI^CO^ 



<00 OCO 'C CI l~ o 

- x co 00 00 cc 00 o 



.OCON-iCCCIC CI 
ccOOicO^^COX'CO 

£ t-4 ^ CI "^ "*P CO ^t" CO. 
C^i CI d CI CI CI CI CI CI 



(MO 

ci "* 

CD I- 



- — y: ~ cc hioco 



■JSU2 9U1J 'J0BJl|XJ[ 



•na8oji!i<[ 



•(So - 9 X N) uraiojj 



• i-j ci ci co ci ci co c6 



d,t-t 



o •- , & o <x: o:"X cn oc 






h (M O -* iO O O CD 

MOtDNiOOiiO 



Toonw 

CMC CO o o 

DO u3 l> r: i-H 

O: Ol 1^ 00 Oi 



c4*-?w 'ci 

CO WO »o cn 

CO co^ coco 



CO CO CO CO CO 



lO WJ lO ifl IQ 



ICON0310 
co coco COCO 



i^iOOhIN 



(M O O O TP 



t- ©CNN 



OOOO f-H 



OC^iON 



00 O i-h CO 00 



(NN 

^ 00 

COCO 



oco 



CO Ol 00 -^ -^ 



CN CO N --H CO 



O t-H 10 1— ICO 
Oi O CD GO OO 



*D Ol 10 CO i-h 



^ O O CO CO 



"^ CO O N CN 
Tl< CO ^ N CD 

co" © CD CD ^ 



^ O **CN CC 



CO CO CO CO CO 



cn co cd co -^ 



cn 00 co co co 
co" ci ci tp ci 

CO CO COCO CO 



I >- N N N t- 



O 1— ■ ^ lOCO 



lOClNrHO 



HW f-4 



N N- 

C 1- 



I CI w 

rH CO 

06 ci 



■setdnrBS jo leqnm^; 



Q • 'So 



2^ §3 










^5 


H 




P 


3 




H 


N 


s 






SB 



HHHCOOJHfr 



C5 CI r-H (M t-h 



COCO II CO O I JO 

coco <o >o I 00 
t~lco cooo gi 



r~co 

co 06 
wco 



coo 
0606 

CO t- 

00 



O0 H 
i-HOO 

00 CO 



sE 



2* S3 



9£ 

22; 



CONCLUSIONS. 



73 



74 



STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS. 



■nrajoid 



•uiaioid 
9iqein3Boi)nou aiqtqog 



•inaiojdaiqtqog 



•niajojd lejox 



05OOiCQC^i-l^^^t*-^*O'-H0000C^OrHC^00MCOC000OC0O»0O-*l^»OC>101t^wO'^ 
<N <N COCOCM^H t-t --i O M rH CO *-( t-< ,-H -J- ,— o rHlOCOM .-< 'I 5 

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I" I 

CM D-hiC CO CO O O O O O A re O t- O t - t - O co -t- - l - ■/ : i C r - :z ~ — -~Z i - C C O X 
t-J cd iH N 10 co r-" t^ > o o ~ co o > cd c i ci co ^ rri i-h -t< o co 10 h* ;d co r^ ** >o t-^ uo rH cm (^ co -* 

N00 OlO t^H CTi O! w O H CO ^ O 'O -f CIO) C CO -^ 'Q " IM ci 10 CO as X CM »-0 CO r- 1 CM CM CO 



^OCOCOOCOOOOOiON't^WO^'tOCNOJlN'tcDH'fWOClHHiOCOOCOM 

oo co cd >o »o »o ^rh p" oj cj t^ co o cr" co a" co -f as cm -h co co" .-h cm co. uS co — * o — * cm »o as 06 h^ 



lOiOt^NOOJh 



- 'X 1 o t-- 1- x <o "-J co n o; ?: lo t co 1- as -o co NwCCMcinx co «*■ 



O^^HCO>OH^t)<Oi*OHr-OMMOOlOiONCOCOCOONOC < lCCO'OONOO 

cpco"ocdcM'rHco^^'^coS^coco^'-<cc^rHCMoa^ 



•uuadsopag; 



CQMOO^OO^C0N^^OC0C0>OOH05iO(NCnO00NNCNOiNOC v II-l-- 1 '/j?; 

1 77 1 1 1 77 



■o^jqina 



HN^OCD^HT.XCOHCCCOCOCOOOONOOOIM. 



MOONOh^^NiOhI- 

cooNN^dccoLo'codio 



CO' OOOCCH^O'lOCC'IW^^I'^COWCO^O'O't'OiOiOHOOHC'ICOh.'tri 



•UBJg; 



0^«)CCOffiNCN^^^O'X)^cO«C«HCO»OiOOO«NCOO'*C005WNP5iOONiO 

Nds^codd^NcoHdddH'dcodd>6ddi6c^co^ddoiHODiodcid 

I I I I i I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 



CQ 



•snuH 



t~ CO 00 .-(CO 

1 777 1 1 



iOOOiOON«y:iOI^tDC'101«00«WiONNOi , ^C]0«NSOO 

r^d©^o^ioor4oHcoai^N l ococicocoNdcocdoJio^dd^ 



•niq^ioaj sb streq:}ro8T; 



OC0OWMiO«MMO^ , C0C0iOClO0000mii:^NO01H^^ , OJNC0X(MrtOC0'0 

MOOHHOxioN^ddHMiricDco^coNcOrtddd^crJciHcviMooMd^N 

r-t T-ICSO HTOnOI^fMbHHH 1 i>H I 1OHKJHH 0> CO ^ CO 1Q CO r-1 



unqdins jb|0X 



000)NHHHHC30COClH«)CD(MOiHOO«HOKtOOOOOC3iOOO^N^(»«eOOH 

^rH«5(^oocdi^co^o^(>icd^aJcoa:i>^»dco^^co^dcicoci^t^tdcocood^'-H 



rHMIMn CM 



I I 



ics r-nnrai 



•pixo rarusanSEjf 



^•CNCNi-l 



I I I 



0<OiOH«lOOO^OMONNO 

»dco»dOThcvio6ot^co»dcioic-icd 



i-hCMOOO 



•prxo umioiBO 



rHfOOO 
-tf^CO "0 

Ml ! 



OCOMOOO '^O • O O O O "^ 



OCOCOCOOuO ."fO 'OO 



LO O CO IQ "*T 

I I I 



■pixo uraissBio<j 



*00(>N 
CO ... . 



t~100(MrHrHlOCOt~T^CN10CO'^0 



a -1* 
I I 



■ HONiOCHWNlMNiONNO 



■ i-h . . 10 -+ r^ 



•pTOB oiioqdsoqd r^ox 



CiWW^^COCOOCO)CftlNN»OI>HOa3WH^O«0^0)cOHWCRCO , trHHCC( s -iO 

osGOcdcdrHio^icvScoocMoii^-cMcdoco'o 



*qsy 



HNOiOCSCOHCO^ON^COOOWb-NC^CCMNCC^CN^CS^CftCftOWOOHOO 

CMOc^cpcM^co^oo^ast^cM^^od^^ 



•JBSnS 8TTB0 



■iBSns Q.J9AUI 



oscocouo"Othoo 



cm 00 00 -^ 00 1— ir- ifl: 
asi— iiooo^cot^-cNi 



CMCMrH -CMOOO 



COCO CO ■ rH coco o 

1— lOOOO "OOlOH 
OO^ i— l 'CN ^ CO w0 



t> 'NHQcococ-iddco'd . cm id cd 

i—l 'HOOCOt-WOlOCNIOl ' CO lO <C© 



•OOOcOCOO CMOOCOrH -co-^o 



■wee »o . o X i-O -o CT- I ^ • 00 i-h CO 
■CM OO -*0 CM CO -^ O CM .'00^0 
• CO »o CO CO CO CO CO CM tJH iO ' -^ CM CM 



00 "^ -00 'ION 



tD »-H -CO 'OCO 



CMOasOCOCOOCOOOOiOOO^> •OCM-^'^OrHas^OiOt-rHCMiOi-^^-iCOOOCNCM 



■I[0IB^g 



lONHNOCOKCJJiOiOr- INOCO '(M^Hi-hOCO" 



HO N CN CM C-l ^) -h O N C O t- CM 



COCMCMCMCMCOCOOIOICOCMC'ICMCMCM 'COCMCO'-nCMCi CI CO CICI 7 J :i CICCOCNMhCOM 

I i i i i j i ii i i i i i i : i I i i i i i I i i i i I i ii i i i 



•scresoiaad 



CCN^SaNNCNN^W©NCOOcDWC<IO^©OOCOC<IQfC^CO^MCnN«3CN^ 
00^ OCM "^CSCM OCO tdcNO i-H O OJiOH CM Tf^ CO * iO CO rH CO -^ CM -^ ' CM N U0 CO CO t^' 

i 1 77 i 1 7 i ^ i i mi ii i i77 i ii 



■iaqi^ 



OW«OMOHiO»0'*OHON^»ONCO^©^00^ , CONHiONCOHCOOOHCCOOO 

NdNOHNHONH^^wcoTi'jocowHioog^TjHd '^oo ' pi ci -^ oo >o d d t ' 



■;bj 



NCKHONHCNCNHH^CftW^ONO^iNlNO^^OOCNOlXlHCiNOiOCOCOOl 
COHd^dwC^lO^d^HMHHwddNHOipO "c^rHCO^^CO^oiQuOCMOOCO 






S3S 



ill! 



aidures jo iequni>i 



O O CM OO N *tf rH CD CO CO ■* rH CO CT. rH OS .-H r-H CM OS "t 1 CO 'CO CO 'O O CM O »0 1^ CM CM MO^t-. 



OS rH O CO CO rH COS - 



j o rH rH o co »o »o r- as co as as co i- o co t-- co •— < co ci — < co o co 



CONCLUSIONS. 



75 





o 

CO 

r- 1 


125.5 
105.1 
111.1 
129. 5 
81.0 
175.6 


O 

o 

- 


89.6 
79.6 
83.0 
86.8 
53.3 
112.7 


CN 


- 8.0 
-11.2 
-12.1 
-15.1 
-13.5 
-14.2 


o 

CM 

7 


-17.5 

-14.5 
e~ 9.4 

-15.1 
a— 10. 8 

-20.1 


CM 

d 

7 


182.5 
40.7 
96.2 
80.0 
84.5 

129.1 


CO 


-26.4 
-34.6 
-38.6 
-37.0 
-31.0 
-47.4 


o 

CO 

1 


- 5.9 

- 6.5 

- 3.7 
-12.4 

00.0 

- 8.4 


UO 
OO 

1 


32.0 
66.7 
85.0 
23.6 
57.0 
41.5 


CO 
CO 


40.9 

1.7 
4.) 

24.5 
8.0 

51.4 


o 


-21.7 
-10.5 

- 9.1 

- 8.3 
-23.5 


■CO 

7 


00.0 
20.0 

-12.5 


CO 

CN) 
CM 

1 


-44.4 
-55.9 
-58.6 

-51.4 
-46.6 


(M 
CO 

1 


-13. J 
-16.8 
-14.6 

- 9.2 
-10.4 

- 2.4 


CN 
| 


-20.4 
-29.1 
-23.9 
-21.2 
-19.9 
-14.8 


d 

CM 
1 


88.4 
91.4 

-23.0 
97.3 

- 8.3 


O 


567. 6 
488.0 
672.0 

560.0 


o 

d 

o 


-26.4 
-28.2 
-33.4 
-42.6 
-33.3 
-32.0 


o 

CO 
<M 

1 


- 2.7 
1.0 

-18.6 

.1 

-10.0 

- 6.3 


CO 

1 


- 5.8 
-10.3 

- 3.0 
-15.8 

- 4.6 
6.8 


CO 

1 


-8.7 
- 3.9 
-15.1 
-11.2 
-13.4 
-10.8 


1>1 

1 




CD 

ca 
< 



s £ 



o 



-r i— -m »c oi i- 
cc x ro io .— i ro 



l '09 



